Pace
Well that takes the biscuit! I thought he was aware of the fuel problem south of Dundee, didn't like oilrigs/bridges etc.
I give up.
Vince, you are a hero, no dead puppies, Nuns or primary schools.
In fact you didn't even land on the ground, you landed with 40ft of altitude remaining!! Superman!

Crash and the others who think that vince should hang up his helmet.

Its all very well with hindsight going on about all these options which he should have thought about.

He proberly spent a couple of days off and on looking at the route picking out the one which he would enjoy the most. Its a big trip, exciting, proberly bored his wife with it endlessly. Pissed off every instructor he came contact with asking there opinion

Kingsmure (or any other parachuting site) to most low hour guys would be a no no because of parachuting there, instructors batter into students to stay away from these sites with dire warnings of meat bombs passing close to wings and MOR's being filed.

He made a plan went over it with an Instructor who had to pass comment on an area outside there own. I must admit I have been asked to do the same for a PPL flying down to Biggin. I helped him up to Cambridge then told him to ask on PPrune because I have no experence flying VFR in the London area.

There are numerous sub optimal planned flights by low houred pilots carried out in the UK every year (and a few by experence commercial pilots). If you ask in any radar room in the UK they will be able to list out many a grey hair provocking experence.

Vince's only major crime is the fact that his bag of luck ran out and it made the newspapers. There have been numerous cockups of a far more dubious nature in scotland which haven't provoked such a bitter hang the bastard responce.

As I said before I predict that there will be some technical factors to do with operating that engine/aircraft and some human factors which with hind sight could have been negated.

The Captancy and SA required to think about all the options mentioned in a unfamilar area is not there in a pilots first two hundred never mind one hundred hours. I suspect that the fife/tayside boys and girls would have just as much issues if they were taken out of there comfort zone up into the Highlands or south into Warton/Liverpool area.

Crash One

No offence intended to you but just an observation that what if is meaningless.
Any accident is rarely one mistake but a string of mistakes which leads to a crash.

Pace

Pace
 

and it's the ability to admit to that string of mistakes which can give some measure of confidence to the flying community that the pilot concerned is on the way to improving himself

Hindsight is easy, I agree with that, what I don't agree with is the denial thing "I did nothing wrong". Well I'm sorry, but if he did nothing wrong what the hell was he doing in a tree after overflying his diversion airfield "apparently" knowing he was short of fuel? That's not hindsight, that's unwise!

Mad Jock, I never said he should hang up his helmet. Nor did I initially suggest Kingsmuir, Just a list of possibles at the time he "apparently" knew he was short.

Give the guy a break,

he has just landed in a tree.
spent some time in Ninewells.
has an interview with the feds tomorrow.
has a proberly worried sick daughter nagging him.
Funeral to organise (which would tend to tell me it was a close family member)


I am just suprised he has been writing as coherently as he has been.

Taken from a post on "the other forum".

Seems he did a lot more than just land in a tree!:ooh:

"perhaps the will put a bit more meat on the bones - an "e" mail I received re the incident in question slightly filleted. It came via a third party and I have no idea who the originator was.

Starts

Here's what the papers didn't say about the Dundee light aircraft crash.

An aircraft on a 7000 squawk had been watched climbing out of Barrow towards TLA steadily climbing to around 9,000ft but not in contact with Scottish Information or Scottish Control. It turned out to be G-VINH a Flight Design CTsw.

GVINH tried to call Edinburgh Approach reporting 10 miles south of Edinburgh but couldn't get two-way contact so called Scottish Control (Talla Sector 126.3) and reported 15 miles south of Edinburgh at 8,700ft. That position would be well inside class D airspace which requires an ATC clearance to enter but where no separation is required to be provided between VFR and IFR traffic. The controller allocated him a squawk and identified him, actually some 45 miles south of Edinburgh and just outside but about to enter controlled airspace. He reported that he was flying VFR from Barrow to Kinloss at 8,700ft. The Talla controller gave him a clearance to transit the Scottish TMA at FL90. Though not legally required to, she took the moral decision to separate this VFR flight from all her IFR inbounds to Edinburgh, all of which would pass close to him whilst descending into Edinburgh. His level drifted between FL80 and FL95 and he commented on the fact that he saw many big aeroplanes passing him by and would prefer if they stayed further away. Pilot's reports and the controller's say that he had a very chatty and laid back attitude and seemed to be completely unaware of the trouble he was causing.

I was being kept up-to-date on these developments as I was on the next sector that he would enter (Tay Sector). At the time I was working an AA-5 northwest of Newcastle inbound Kirknewton at FL70. He was IFR but VMC on top of an 8/8th layer of cloud. I suspect that G-NH was also VMC on top.

Nearer to Talla GVINH asked to climb to 10,000ft and was cleared to FL100. He did not understand Flight Levels and eventually the harassed and busy controller cleared him to fly at 10,000ft on 1013mb which he was happy with. Thankfully at this point I was sent off for my tea break so had no further need to worry about him. However before reaching Edinburgh he requested to descend to 5,000ft "due to clouds". The Talla controller coordinated with Edinburgh Approach who cleared him down to FL70 only (the Standard Instrument Departures from Edinburgh all climb to 6,000ft). G-NH was cleared to FL70 and transferred to Edinburgh Approach. He was seen to descend through the Edinburgh CTR down to 3,000ft. Later Edinburgh Approach phoned to complain that he had dropped below FL70 and they were still waiting for him to be transferred from Scottish. However Scottish had transferred him when he started his descent out of FL100, which G-NH acknowledged. He never did call Edinburgh. By now my supervisor was involved and as G-NH was approaching Glenrothes at around 3,000ft my supervisor phoned Glenrothes and Leuchars to see if he was in contact with them. He wasn't. Some time later Dundee called to say that G-NH was diverting into them for fuel. He had called them saying he was at 10,000ft but radar indicates that he was below 5,000ft.

This next bit is not confirmed yet but will make interesting reading in the AAIB report. Apparently (I don't know if this is true) he did a low approach and go-around at Dundee, complaining that he thought he must have a fuel leak. Why didn't he land? A few minutes later the engine stopped and he elected to make a forced landing in a golf course to the North-East of Dundee City. Rather than landing on one of the 18 fairways he chose to stall his aircraft into a crop of trees (a manoeuvre he read about in a Biggles book, he says). He managed to 'land' some 40ft up a tree and after an hour was successfully rescued by the fire service. Rather than phoning the AAIB or my watch supervisor he then gave interviews to TV crews telling of his Biggles landing technique and the need to avoid houses in the area.

1) Why did he run out of fuel after 140nm of a 216nm flight?
2) Why was he prepared to enter the Scottish TMA (Class D) without a clearance?
3) Why did he not know what a Flight Level was?
4) Why when he discovered he had a fuel problem did he not land at Glenrothes, Leuchars, Perth or Dundee?
5) Why did he elect to land in trees rather than the many fairways available?

This microlight pilot was certainly not a hero for saving lives in the houses near to the golf course or those few golfers on the fairways. He was a reckless fool who endangered the lives of hundreds by planning to fly through the Scottish TMA without talking to Scottish and getting a clearance first (thank goodness he had a transponder with Mode C on), flying through the Edinburgh CTR without a clearance or making contact with Edinburgh, doing a go around at Dundee when he thought he had a fuel leak rather than landing to check it out. Or if there was no fuel leak then his fuel planning was terribly out, as he only had fuel for about 55% of the trip.

Unlike some I don't think this (low time) pilot should be banned but I do think the book should be thrown at him, heavy fines imposed and a lot of retraining and examination carried out before he is allowed to fly again. He made some mistakes and has paid a heavy price for them already, with a written-off aeroplane. But if he had run out of fuel over the mountains he would possibly be dead now. So he is very lucky.

Maybe the investigation will find some mechanical fault that caused his problem but that will not excuse his poor planning and poor airmanship. But he was definitely not a hero, as reported in the press and by witnesses to the crash. Pilots like this give us all a bad name and can only harm the few remaining freedoms we have.""

:ouch: ouch your on your own now vince if even a quarter of that is true

I was under the impression that we knew some of that from his own admissions to the illustrious meeja, though I did think he was talking to Edinburgh. Good luck Vince!!

Well, there's a resounding ring of truth to the style of that email. Either it's a very well put together hoax, or it's (very) well informed.

Regardless, it reinforces my impression that this pilot is a liability to himself and others, is definitely not fit to hold a licence, and in the hands of a trick cyclist with an agenda, could find himself sectioned.

How many of us would travel by train in pyjamas and a hi-viz vest?

Most dangerously of all, though, he appears completely in denial, and dangerously out of touch with the real world. Again, how would our in-built reasonableness checks view quoting a Biggles book in defence of our actions?

Maybe that cyclist is not so far off the mark?

Anent the pyjamas and hi-vis vest, he was presumably admitted to hospital wearing the clothes in which he flew. Given that he apparently walked away from the the foot of the ladder, if not the scene of the crash, I doubt that his clothes were cut off by the paramedics. So what happened to his clothes?

If the content of that email is even half right, then I'm afraid that Vince has some very serious issues regarding his competence to fly that need to be admitted to and addressed before he flies again.

Unfortunately, I doubt that Vince will see that he's made any errors at all, he comes across as an individual who is completely oblivious to his own failings.
The AAIB report might make interesting reading when it comes out, although, because there were no serious injuries, I doubt that they will bother to look at causality in too much detail; they may even just rely on Vince's own account as the principal source of evidence.

It would be nice to think that his insurers might choose to look carefully at why this accident happened, but as third party damage was modest I doubt they'll bother, either.

The net result is that Vince will carry on as before, until the next accident.

VP

Even the most scandalous tabloids are a model of carefully considered analysis, adhering to proven facts and objectivity compared to what is going on in this thread.

"Rumour Network", indeed, but this goes beyond rumour... Are we now to understand that a pilot's flying abilities are somehow indicated by what clothes he wore when released from hospital? :suspect: Or that some email from an unknown "third party" (what is it now, five levels removed?) has any credibility whatsoever?

I don't see the point of any of this. The opinions expressed very vocally by a very few posters in this thread are of no relevance whatsoever when based on such entirely unreliable sources. And regarding what they think should be done (his insurers should do this, and his instructors should do that, and he shouldn't go on flying yada yada yada), frankly it's none of their business...

Vince, you are a very lucky chap. There are numerous other aviators who have been equally adventurous who have not survived to recount there tales of daring do on Proone. Like many, I'm intrigued as to the actual events; fuel utilisation, "VFR" at 10000ft in the TMA (IMC rating?) etc. I'm sure it will all come out in the wash. In the interim, maybe it is worth assessing your true capabilities and operating accordingly, if only for the sake of your family.

Well, there is a certain amount of evidence that this chap displayed very poor airmanship, so perhaps that's reason enough to question his continued competence to fly?

Let's not forget that Vince is a microlight pilot, who was flying a microlight. He cannot legally go VMC on top, plus he has certain other restrictions on his flying as a consequence of the limitations of his licence and the Permit to Fly for his microlight.

Others heard the radio exchanges and have reported essentially the same story. Common factors in these relayed radio transcripts are the laid-back manner, the disregard for the hassle he was causing and the lack of understanding of basics, like flight levels.

Of course, we could all be making this stuff up, but Vince himself has contributed some snippets that support the case for his own incompetence. His insistence that he didn't have an accident, for example, or that he didn't run out of fuel, or even that his aircraft has been confirmed as being safe to fly down to 1/2 litre of fuel remaining in the tanks.

We must all make up our own minds as to where the truth lies, but I'm in no doubt that this accident was entirely the fault of the pilot and was absolutely avoidable.

The downside is that the rest of us will have to pay for Vince's arrogant refusal to accept that he is to blame, as the insurance companies will just get the money back from all our premiums. Given that there are only a couple of thousand microlights flying, his actions could add about a fiver to each and every microlight pilot's insurance premiums, more for some if there is more than one underwriter.

VP

Rest assured, the CAA Enforcement Branch will have access to the relevant RT and radar recordings to support any action they need to take. Let's start with 'infringement' of Edinburgh airspace (the pilot did not have a clearance to enter it, he only had a clearance in the TMA above) and a failure to comply with ATC instructions (non compliance with level instructions which could stretch to 'endangerment') and see where we go from there.

The airmanship and accident pieces of this incident should be kept separate.

On airmanship grounds alone, it seems that our hero should not be let loose on other airspace users until he has been educated to an appropriate standard which allows him to use UK airspace without endangering other fliers and the broader public.

On the accident, he walked away so that is a plus point. How he ended up having to land in the tree in the first place is the important question for the AAIB to answer.

Vince's alleged meander reminds me of some rt chatter that I heard some years ago whilst approaching Edinburgh. Similar circumstances, low hour pilot making an epic X country in unfamiliar territory. I think e had been given a zone transit on a SVFR clearance but seemed to be having some difficulty in identifying VRPs around Edinburgh and was bumbling further into the controlled airspace without much apparent idea as to where he was actually going. I think the controllers had rightly decided that it was safer to shepherd him through than risk him trying to sneak around the edges.

Anyway, During one exchange I heard this wayward individual give his position "height at 2000ft over head ..... em.... I think it's ...well, I can see the river." On being asked to route via the Airfield and report overhead he was also given traffic information, a Gill Air SD360 from memory, two seconds later came the reply " I'm visual with traffic" and from the SD360 - that's amazing, we're still in cloud! Which they had been from their descent inbound from LBA.

He was still bumbling around when we arrived and I wonder if he ever made his destinantion. It was marginal VFR weather with lots of broken clouds but very poor horizontal visibility. Flying VFR in unfamiliar airspace must have been like trying piece together a jigsaw of the chart. Talk about making it difficult.

Poor Vince, looks like everyone is out to prove that his accident was avoidable - they usually are. Hopefully, the lessons have been learned by all. Don't drive past a filling station when you've got 100 miles to go and only enough fuel for 70 - you'll not make it!

I am sorry too, if the above e-mail has any foundation in fact as this is a very public forum and I think we all know that landing in the tree was only the culmination of a very bad day for Mr. H. We all make mistakes and next time I do I will remember to take responsibility early in the process. Humility is a great thing -more so for a hero, even when he is inVincible.

Please, do pay attention. :ok:

Oh dear me:D

Hero to Zero

The 'evidence' such as it is on a rumour network does seem to add up, whereas the story Vince gives does not. It is my belief that Vince ran out of fuel, and failed to do a forced landing as he was taught. He found himself landing on a golf course, with a few feet to go and still travelling at 70kts and a tree looming fast. Rather than hit the tree he pulled back on the stick, the CT obliged and ballooned up to the stall. The aircraft rather than crash back to earth was caught in the branches of the tree. He then spent the next hour, while waiting to be rescued, dreaming up the Biggles story. To add some colour to the story he was telling the press, we had crashing into house, avoiding children, golfers etc..

When I have made a mistake I have laid awake at night beating myself up about it, wondering if I should be flying at all. Then speaking to my old CFI and telling him what I have done, being told I wasn't the first to do it and wont be the last does not help. However some good pointers and advise on how to avoid the error in future helps.

Vince while on the train home has plenty of time to reflect on just how very very lucky he was to survive. Not Vince, he travels home in his pajamas to draw attention from the public, and so he could tell them he was the hero pilot on the news. So rather than think about departing his home base with insufficient fuel and planning, flying above 8/8 cloud, busting airspace, failing to land at Dundee, running out of fuel, failing to carry out a forced landing as taught (not bad for one flight) he chooses to ask the CAA to ground all CT's until the fuel problem is sorted. I'm sure CT owners would be very grateful if the CAA grounded their aircraft to save them all from certain death.

PS Oliver please dont sell him another CT the profit will not be worth the hassle.

PPS It would be good to hear from the experts at Barrow, that advised him he was okay, to hear their side. I suspect it was not as Vince reported.

I dunno about you guys, but I was always taught never to second guess the PIC from an armchair when I don't have all the facts. And even when I DID have all the facts, I was taught to give the PIC the benefit of the doubt; I wasn't there, he might have seen something I wouldn't have, or visa versa.

Some of the comments here are downright ridiculous and rude; and you guys are the professionals?

Yea he was dumb. Yea he made mistakes. And yea, he probably should just graciously bow out of the lime light. But some of the posts are too far. He lived, he didn't hurt anyone - so why the vitriol? I don't mean to be disrespectful of the senior pilots here, I'm just saying...it's a bit much. And a bit antagonistic.

A bit OTT? How much effort for the controller to snap back "that's 10,000 feet at 1013 QNH" when Vince said he couldn't understand FL100?

Without commenting on the validity of some of the "evidence" presented here this thread is a refreshing and entertaining addition to a forum this was rather dull of late.

I am firmly in the camp of not making judgment from an armchair without the necessary information. However in this case there is a wealth of information that is not hearsay, but actually comes from the horses mouth. Whilst some posts are based on assumptions dear Vince has given quite enough on here and through the media for people to pass judgment.

It is not the accident itself that has brought about the criticism, but more the manner in which Vince has handled the aftermath. There are those who have argued that his initial interaction with the media may have been as a result of 'shock' and that, at the time, was a valid argument. Not so now I fear as the bold Vince has come on here with the same bravado after having time to reflect on his incident AND consider the comments posted.

What are we to do, reinforce his delusion and condone his actions by not being critical?

The difference between this accident and others is that Vince set himself up for the flack following the accident.

In my view the man's a nutter that needs saving from himself and I base that solely on comments from him, rather than conjecture posted here.

I want to know how he managed to hassel a Talla sector controller into giving him the clearance he wanted.

Be trying for years to get TLA-GRICE-INV as per flight planned route (saving 250 quid for the company) but the buggers always send me to Foyle. :p

:O:OSlightly off-topic,- I am quite astounded by the apparent disparity between assigned and reported altitudes, V those purported to be returned by radar.

It is a well-documented fact that radar speed-traps return a wildly inaccurate return from fibreglass and Composite motor-bodies...I think Alloy also reflects differently......many motorists have successfully defended themselves from speeding-charges due to this.

So, (I know, apples and oranges) Do Composite aircraft show an erroneous height return?

As the pilot apparently confirmed his pressure-setting and would seem to have , at some points, have flown the assigned alt. this begs the question,- did the pilot deliberately lie to ATC, in the erroneous belief they "couldn't see" him, or did he have "selective" instrument -failure ( Thales Pitot iced? :} )

under the circumstances, sounds like PPP due to lack of PP P :}



(for other non-pilots (and Journo's)...the acronym = Prior Planning Precludes..Piss-Poor Performance.)

Edit....OK, The Altimeter relies on Static...back yo the Trevor Thom's. :O )

Maybe they are your guardian angels - saving you from idiots who blast through between cloud layers 'at 10,000 on 1013mb'??!!

I am sure that a lot of points will come out in the AAIB report, much of it airmanship related, and almost certainly not the positive spin that Mr H has been trying to generate since his crash.

Few people are more annoying than A list celebrities who will court the media at every occasion for all the publicity and spin they can, and then winge like babies once something less flattering (and usually brutally accurate) is exposed.

But one group even more annoying are the Z list celebs who will do anything in a desperate attempt to keep their name in trashy rags, fighting to make sure the next gasp of the oxygen of publicity and 'fame' is not their last.

The only people more annoying than these Z listers are idiot attention seekers who live their lives trying to be the centre of attention and who desperately wish to be famous. They will do virtually anything to get their 5 minutes of fame. Then they get upset when the spin doesn't work, and their stupidity is exposed publicly, so they winge about how badly the press have treated them. Sadly, they seem genetically incapable of keeping a low profile, showing some humility, and keeping schtumm, compelled as they are to open their big mouths and stick their foot in it.

This roughly where Mr H enters the scene.

Given the circumstances, a brief and rather more humble statement to the media along the lines of:-

"I have had a lucky escape. Apologies and very grateful thanks to the air traffic controllers, police, fire, ambulance and over-worked and under-staffed NHS for taking up their valuable resources."

... would have come over a whole lot better, and would have won Mr H a few more friends and supporters than he has achieved with his choice of gunning for maximum publicity posing as some kind of hero.

And still I haven't seen even the first hints of him accepting any responsibility for any of his actions, not one hint of humility, not one hint of any attempt to learn from this situation of his own making.

But then we all know the difficulty of changing habits of a lifetime, and the saying about old dogs and new tricks!

I'm just off to EDI, via TALLA. It is a massive relief to know for certain that Mr H is presently grounded so there is one less risk to my passengers, crew and me on this occasion. I simply cannot tell you just how scary the though of Mr H at 10,000' in controlled airspace is.



To answer another question:
Altitude returns are sent Mode C (or S) by transponders and are usually very accurate, sent as flight levels ref 1013mb.

They are not influenced by aircraft construction material in any way.

Nah its a tay sector workload thing which is fair enough.

Hats off to scottish for the cracking service we all enjoy day in day out be it from FISbangwallop and collegues to the area controllers, they give a safe friendly service with very few grump's on the mic.

I hope any fallout from this event doesn't cause the "can do if its safe" attituded which we have enjoyed in the past to change.

And to the lady who no doudt has had to fill out a pile of paper work over this affair, keep your chin up. Some of us pillocks are thinking about you.:ok:

I hope you are reading this Vince, It's not the mistakes you made that is annoying, it is the fact that you think you can fool hundreds of other pilots into believing that you didn't make them.
Various cliche's are valid. Don't bul!!!! a bul!!!!ter, Sailing down the Clyde on a water biscuit. Piss down my back & tell me it's raining etc.
You are 63 yrs old ,enough to know better. You put lives a risk, disrupted air traffic, caused emergency services unnecessary work. You then try to justify your actions with mentions of Biggles!
If you expect sympathy or admiration I suggest you join the cross stitch forum. You are a big boy now, grow up & act like one.

By the way if anyone is interested, Kingsmuir is no longer a drop zone.
Fully operational, make yr own coffee etc.

Reading the transcripts of the airspace blunders I would totally agree with that satement.
But I would also like to ask where his lack of training has contributed to the catalogue of events which lead to his crash.
The fact that he seems to be unaware of airspace restrictions and unaware of basic facts like flight level settings and RT procedures shows a massive gap in his knowledge.

Who ever trained him has also got some answering to do. I am not sure what is required to gain lower level licences for aircraft like microlights? Did he hold a PPL? I am sure the buck doesn not stop with him but goes further back.

I would also caution against making assertions. I know my own feelings about the accident have changed from sympathetic to less sympathetic to annoyed as further details emerge. Somehow I dont feel this saga has come to its end and could herald changes and stiffening up in training standards.

Pace

He's reported as an NPPL but that shouldn't make any difference.

You can't get a PPL ( NPPL) without going through the whole syllabus which includes flight planning and navigation. The training provides the skills necessary to conduct a safe flight and the tools to assist in decision making.

What training can't do is ensure that qualified pilots their acquired knowledge properly!

I feel a lecture coming on!

Pace
I got my NPPL(A) in 2007, Flight levels, airspace categories, RT, zone transit stuff , navigation, flight planning etc. Just like a real PPL but a bit less instrument flying.
The training syllabus is not at fault.
How it is applied at a local level may be worth investigation. How much of it sinks in & remains beyond the appropriate exam paper is down to the pilot.
Most microlight pilots I've seen tend to head for a lot of height in case the donkey dies mid Forth river. But they all seem to know what they are doing regarding talking to Edinburgh etc. So I don't think the NPPL(M) is any worse.

Unknown Target identify yourself please. I guess you re a friend of Mr Biggles?

Small plane flyers do not have less rights than large plane flyers.
Both are required to adhere to the rules of aviation.

As to Mr Biggles I agree his most stupid mistake to date was how he decided to handle the aftermath. This does not imply it also was his biggest mistake, thats for the AAIB to decide.

What, because I defend the rights of private pilots to fly, I'm automatically lumped in with an egotistical loudmouth? I'm not even in the same country as him, the only similarity we share is that we are both similarly low time (I'm 78.6 hours) - I'm based in the US.

Unknown Target, Flight level setting is really basic altimetry, and should be absolutely standard knowledge for any pilot whose past his 1st solo, let alone 50-odd hours post qualification.

They're nowt to do with 10,000 feet by the way, so it appears you dont know them either. If you're a pilot, I suggest you urgently go away and read the altimetry sections of both your met and air law books before you fly again:ugh:

M9 (not a driver of heavy metal)

PS Did you not spot the Freudian slip in :
(Just in case you dont understand proportionality either :hmm:, the above quotation suggests the heavier the aircraft you fly, the poorer the standard of airmanship :ok:)

unknown target.

Why wouldn't a PPL/NPPL pilot know about flight levels. Isn't the transition at around 3500'? so well within his flight envelope.
My golden rule is, if you don't know the what the words mean you are in the wrong job.

It would appear that another thing this inconsiderate asshole has done is have the rest of us bugsmasher drivers defending ourselves as if we were all of the same ilk but for a stroke of good fortune.
I am certainly not ashamed of the training I took both during & since NPPL, & no I have'nt finished learning yet before some smart ass points that out.

I'm sorry Pace, but you seriously expect a PPL/Ultralight pilot to know about flight level settings? Especially such a low hour pilot? If I recall correctly, he can't even go above 10,000 feet!

I think a big part of this discussion is the discrepancy between the big guys (i.e. you high hour heavy metal drivers) and the little guys here (i.e. us private sardine can pushers). When a 172 hits an Airbus, they both go down; so they both have as much right to be in the air as anybody and are as important on ATC's radar as each other. The problem I'm having with this whole discussion isn't so much the negative comments directed at Mr. H (whether he deserves it or not), it's the comments directed at light aviation pilots - comments like;

"I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that a Pilots Airmanship is inversely proportional to the aircrafts Max All Up Weight and/or HP of his engine...."

...that really get my blood flowing. Are you guys serious? You're telling a low time pilot that he should be kicked out of the sky (a sky that you seem to act like you own) because he's rusty (giving him a very large benefit of the doubt here) on procedures, or doesn't know procedures that are outright IFR only? You guys sure are the cream of the crop, yea, you made it all the way to the top and slugged your way through the private sector, but guess what - private flying didn't go away when you left it behind, and it's got just as much right to be in the air as you do. Maybe if we had less of this snotty nose in the air attitude towards light plane pilots, the current pilot retention rate wouldn't be below 50% and new pilot numbers falling like Mr. Biggles here.


EDIT: People are replying to my post and I can't reply back, as I am waiting for moderator approval. Please view my latest reply here, sorry if this is uncouth but I hate being muzzled in a good debate :)

I would very much like a chance to defend myself, but alas I must wait for a moderator to approve my posts? So I write this in an attempt to calm the fire of argument that is currently burning within me :p

vanHorck: I do not know Mr. H nor have ever been in the country of Britain to begin with. It seems that you have misinterpreted my remarks, as you seem to think the main thrust of my point is to defend Biggle-boy. No, my main remark is that the attitude expressed by many of the people in this thread is quite derogatory to private pilots.

I also am offended and slightly perturbed by the idea that since I present a different argument, I am lumped in with Mr. H here; I'm a safe pilot. I passed my check ride with flying colors; I always do a run up before take off, I always do a double walkaround and double check my fuel and oil before I go up. I always practice proper radio calls and try to sound as professional as possible. Hell, I want to learn so much and be so perfect at flying that I kick myself when there's even the slightest bump in my landings - and there generally isn't, even with the 20 knot crosswind across the beach where I typically land with the under 3,000 lb DA-20 that I usually fly. And I'm teaching myself aeronautics to boot, with a $200+ library slowly being built on my shelf.

Mariner9: I know what a flight level is, my point is that you hardly ever hear it as a private pilot, at least in my (admittedly) small experience range. I usually stay below 3,000 feet, so I have a different experience than Mr. H here. I would have probably made his ill-fated flight at 2,500 feet as well, because that's where I'm most comfortable. And I'm sorry, but I was also taught that if I didn't understand a tower's instructions, I would simply ask for clarification; not become a danger to life and limb because I didn't know the definition of one of the commands.

Also, you got me on the proportionality - nice way to toss in a casual insult though. No, I mixed up what I read and managed to get it quite wrong. My mistake.

A Pommie: I'm sorry, I haven't heard the word "flight level" in over two years, and I've never heard it spoken on the radio. I guess I should stop flying because I forgot that bit of minutia, instead of asking the tower to clarify their instruction when the need arose?

EDIT2: Honestly Pace, I wouldn't shift the blame from him to the training. That just gets the flight instructors in trouble for a dumb student; if he didn't know how to do something, he should have asked someone (again, me being the safe pilot, that's what I do - I just did that last week actually, asking a senior pilot at the FBO for some procedure clarifications on a trip I was making), he should have checked his fuel, etc etc. I don't know the layout of the area he was in, so I can't comment on his landing choice. Pancaking into a tree surely was not the best option though, isn't England quite famous for it's large flat fields?

Unknown Target

I am not a heavy metal pilot either maybe faster metal as in corporate citation sized jets but not heavy :) also have flown numerous twins and singles too and still do for what its worth.

If you go through my posts you will see that most have defended "Mr Biggles" and no where have I been rude to him. I have tried to be understanding realising we can all do stupid things me included.

There have been some serious errors in knowledge and judgement with this accident. Even in my last post I have tried to swing the blame to the training as I am now really having a hard job getting my head aound this chain of events and the attitude following it.

Pace

nb I would also be suspicious of someone who calls himself unknown target, joins today and has never made a post before.

The fact that anyone can make mistakes, & that certainly includes me also, is fine. Denying they were made when they are serious, is not. And is nothing to do with training, airmanship or whatever, it is to do with integrity as a person.
And yes I would be rude to him.

I think the over sensitive NPPLs and others are over reacting. The slurs as far as I can see are not aimed at all pilots of anything that doesn't have an on board toilet but, specifically at Mr. H.

A simple analysis of the information provided by the pilot in question would suggest that he ended outside his own comfort zone and made a string of poor decisions. Unfortunately for him, his errors conspired to leave him 40ft up a tree - where you can't hide, well not for long.

OK , bad news for light aviation generally as events such as this do tend to colour public opinion. All the more reason that VH shoulder full responsibility. Not ATC who he claims may have given him a duff piece of guidance ( incidentally, I dug out an old VFR guide which clearly states for Dundee that "A/C movements to the North of the aerodrome are not permitted due to poor vis from TWR" ( words to that effect) . Not the folks at Barrow that OK'd his flight plan, not the aircraft manufacturer whose wings tanks mean that it is difficult to gauge contents, not the golf course that was busy, not the kids playing footie on the playing fields or the houses at the end of the open space, not the the tree, and not F**ing Biggles.

I'm with PACE on this. It is perhaps the only conclusion that either this guy wilfully ignored all the training and advice he was given or, that he didn't understand enough of it in the first place and/or, that after 4 years he has forgotten it all. Is it the system or the pilot?