Microlight Down near Kincardine, Clackmannanshire
 

BBC News - One dead after Clackmannan microlight crash

One person has died (no survivors). The picture on the Beeb appears to show it as G-MVSV which was a GEMINI FLASH IIA, but G-INFO says that was de-registered so I've probably got that wrong.

RIP


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...ght_closer.jpg
(image from news link)

I don't think you have. I read that exactly the same. :(

It was G-MVSV... whatever it was doing in the air at that time should come out in future I hope!

I have no knowledge but the permit could have bee just renewed, or the flight could have been for a permit renewal.

G

Seems the gutter press have mastered G-Info :ugh:

Pilot dies as microlight falls 100m - Top stories - Scotsman.com

As Genghis said, could well have been the Permit test flight, seems to take the CAA a few weeks to update their online records from what I've seen of my own aircraft over the years.

UA

You can hardly blame the press - given that pilots - who bluntly should know a great deal better - leapt to the same conclusions.

To be honest, I think that newspaper article is one of the most accurate and well researched articles I have seen.

Agreed. But surely it'd have to be registered in the first place before any flight can take place? According to G-INFO the site was updated at 20:55 yesterday, and so if the aircraft was registered yesterday I think that it would show up when searching today?

Gasax, I think it is you who has jumped to conclusions. Wondering why an aircraft, which according to G-INFO is de-registered, was flying is not jumping to any conclusions it is simply wondering. I certainly haven't jumped to any conclusions but if there are any which you feel you might like me to jump to do let me know and I'll see what I can do. :rolleyes: :*

All The Nines... You seem to assume that nobody would take to the skies unless they had been trained, gained a licence and their aircraft was properly registered and in permit?

Of course the rules say you should do so, but not everyone obeys the rules in the big bad world.

AnglianAV8R, I don't assume such, just as I don't assume that everyone obeys the speed limits on the road just because the law says you should.

I was just trying to clarify a couple of points further up the thread, and questioning how it could be a permit test flight if it wasn't already registered. I think that any inspector would like to be fairly sure that an aircraft is registered before it is flown, otherwise any insurance certificate that the aircraft might hold would be invalid? I also think the BMAA would reject the permit application if they found the aircraft to be De-Registered, so surely it is something that is checked? I'm not trying to be clever here, just stating the way I interpret the law and how it would work. I don't personally have experience of gaining a permit to fly on a microlight, and so I'm sure someone here will be able to either confirm the above or else put me right.

As a complementary, illustrative post to Anglian's have a look at the video on this thread.
NB: for the benefit of those who need things to be spelled out for them in words of one syllable: I am NOT saying or implying that this is what happened in this case.

All The Nines... fair comment. The BMAA permit check flight needs to be done by a BMAA Check Pilot, who could be the inspector but doesn't have to be, I believe. I'm not sure whether the Inspector needs to validate the registration of the aircraft to the owner, but the owner would need to be a BMAA member. Much the same with LAA permit machines, except the owner can do the check flight, subject to having sufficient hours on type or similar.

Time will tell, but there are reports indicating that the pilot was advised to take lessons, but didn't. 'nuf said.

DX.....
Brilliant entertainment and certain darwin award category on that video.

Could I remind everybody that somebody died here. The reasons for this have yet to be determined, but they ultimately will not be about the paperwork, they'll be about the aeroplane and the pilot. So, whilst of interest, the status of the registration, PtF and the PiC's licence(s) are not what actually caused the accident. That was something physical - perhaps weather, perhaps how it was flown, perhaps a physical failure. But it wasn't the paperwork.


Having said that, yes I believe it's entirely possible either that it had been re-registered but G-INFO hadn't been updated: the lag is generally a few weeks, or that the owner intended to use the permit renewal to get the aeroplane re-registered. If this was a check flight, then the check pilot was insured by the BMAA; if it was a private flight shortly afterwards then potentially the insurance had just been renewed on the phone. All quite legal.

Or it was an illegal flight, of a de-registered aeroplane with no current Permit to Fly. That also fits what we know at the moment.

But again, the paperwork did not cause the accident.


Flexwings, like any other aeroplane, bite if stuff goes wrong. That tragically happened here. So far as I know, nobody knows enough right now to piece the reasons together, but I'm sure this will come together shortly. The photograph indicates a near vertical collision with an intact aeroplane. That could be a low level stall, a tumble, or a cable failure. Or something else.

The type, a Gemini F2a had an inglorious early history and quite a few fatal accidents due to loss of control. However it has been perfectly safe over the last decade and more since various modifications were mandated. It is however known to have a wing that is intolerant of not being correctly set and maintained. I've no doubt that somebody's already told AAIB about that.

G

The CAA posts the date and time "data extracted", which has a very different meaning to "updated". I know that data on my aircraft has not always been up-to-date in G-INFO.

I know a couple of folk that have scared themselves !!!!less on flex wings after a purchase on ebay.

They were all rather qualified in flying terms. And they were all legal for jumping in and having a go solo.

But this whole thing of power on the foot, push to flare instead of pull and no rudder really is a recipey for a change of pants and multiple approaches and your bag of luck getting emptied.

Another one which was hilarious to watch was someone that had bought one of those para gliders and then strap a big fan on your back. Eventually it ran out of fuel and landed with a fence post stopping his forward velocity middle wicket. As one of the others said if you had aimed to hit it you would always miss.

Before microlight differences training became mandatory (although it seems to have slipped back to "recommended" again for most pilots) we used to see at-least one perfectly serviceable microlight aeroplane a year destroyed in the UK by experienced and well qualified pilots who didn't think they needed training.

Personally I have no trouble jumping between the flexwings and light aeroplanes, any more than I do between a car and a bicycle; I find them so different there's no real issue. But I did get properly trained for each, not try and make it up as I went along. There is nothing intuitive about either if you've not done it before, and the first half dozen hours I had in a flexwing regularly scared the willies out of me.

Now however, I actually find jumping between 3-axis microlights and light aeroplanes more difficult and potentially dangerous, because the controls are basically the same, but all of the speeds and attitudes are quite different.

G

Must admit I did have the offer to have a shot which i declined.

I just had to look at the collection of tent poles with a bath slung under to know that it would be twentys mins of saying "oh fcuk" every thirty seconds and a safe arrival wasn't a cert. And after seeing a engine failure in one on youtube they just don't glide.

They do look very good fun though and once I find one I can fit my arse into after suitable instuction its on my list of things to do.

Very welcome to a go if you're ever at a loose end down my end of the country Jock.

And they do glide pretty well, as I'd be glad to demonstrate :E

G

MJ......That's no way to talk about the J31 :cool:

J31 would be more of a brick !!!!e house suspended on a Steel lintel.

Pilot has now been named.

Of note that that is not the name of the registered owner on G-INFO.

G

Also of note is the CAA seem happy to state to the media that, as far as they are concerned, it is de-registered. So G-INFO would seem fairly accurate!

beeb article here now says:
I feel for his family. So easy to be flippant but a life has been lost, and every life is precious.

With the greatest respect to his family and acknowledging a life has been lost let's not overlook how it happened, or indeed the apparent disregard the pilot had for the law and safety of others!

Taking it at face value I find it difficult to get all sentimental.

BB

Presumably the CAA would not know if this pilot had a non-UK licence.
NS

I'm led to believe that the chap had purchased the Microlight on ebay and enquired about lessons however the cost put him off. I've heard quite a bit more but I'll leave it at that for the moment and let the investigation run its course.

UA

It wouldn't matter, because you cannot fly a UK microlight on a foreign licence.

Aye you can.

You just need any JAR license with a SEP Class rating.

Just like I can fly one on my UK JAR ATPL SEP class rating with zero training if I was stupid enough to try.

To quote someone on here:

Yep so anyone from any JAR country with a JAR license not a national one can come to the UK and fly G reg microlights on there JAR SEP class rating.

You just can't presume you can do it the other way round though. And for that matter they may not be permited to do the same thing at home.

I see what you mean. Very strange indeed.

The issue of permissions to fly microlights, for other licence holders, has always been rather odd.

The issue should be simple - they're different, but not that different. So you need training, or you are probably going to break it, and possibly yourself. The amount of training will depend upon the pilot and the aeroplane.

But depending upon whether you have an ICAO licence, a UK licence, a JAR licence, or an NPPL - all of which you might be quite legally flying, say, a PA28 with - the rules change about what training and testing you need to fly a microlight.

Which is daft. It really should be the same for everybody. Which is to say MANDATORY differences training. The only debating point really is then whether it should be just signed off by an instructor, or requires an examiner.

G

Your not really needing to test the full skill set so a sign off solo by an instructor should be fine just like a tailwheel differences in my opinion.

That is my opinion as well.

But my strongest opinion is that everybody should have to meet the same requirements, rather than jumping around depending upon what form of "heavy metal" licence you happen to hold.

G

andHang on. What about ANO Article 62 which states:
Surely that allows non-JAR PPLs to fly G-reg microlights? Where does it say that the "deemed valid" provision doesn't extend to microlights?
NS

Any ICAO licence with something equivalent to SEP should do. I've come across people with FAA PPL(SEP) licences flying microlights, so far as I could tell legally.

But in my opinion differences training should be mandatory for everybody. Either when going to microlights, or when switching control systems between 3-axis, flexwing, and/or PPC.

In the meantime, any pilot who is not an idiot should get differences training, whether legally required or not.

G

In France you cannot fly a microlight on a French or foreign PPL. So, the UK CAA could not deem a French PPL valid for microlights.




Détail d'un texte

The CAA can deem valid anything it likes on a G reg and its airspace. It got nothing to do with the French CAA.

It couldn't let a french licensed pilot fly a F reg, in UK airspace or a G reg in French airspace.

As I said they might not be allowed to do the same thing at home.

MJ
I disagree. The French PPL does not authorise the holder to fly a microlight, so the CAA can hardly override that. It would be different if the Contracting State did not specifically exclude microlights from PPL privileges.

In the event of an incident, the foreign licence would need to be verified with the issuing state and the microlight exclusion would come to light.