OBA Crash
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bristol
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HB's spot on with the comments above, a point that has been somewhat overlooked!
I've no doubt Liberty students making a transition into the Warrior, feel like its going up in an armchair!
Regards
CR
I've no doubt Liberty students making a transition into the Warrior, feel like its going up in an armchair!
Regards
CR
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lancashire
Age: 53
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about the accidents that go unreported?
After that incident on the 21st February, you have missed out the 3 OTHERS that happened while I was there.
1 Student had a prop strike at St Augustine a few days later, another had a tail strike a few days after that, and a canopy detached from another the following week. Anyone want the photos?
1 Student had a prop strike at St Augustine a few days later, another had a tail strike a few days after that, and a canopy detached from another the following week. Anyone want the photos?
Last edited by Andy Nicholls; 1st Sep 2007 at 16:46.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lancashire
Age: 53
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saint Augustine
He pranged at Saint Augustine. The give away was when he leaft OBA in the morning in an XL2, and came home from Saint Augustine in a car? He told us over lunch at the Golf club that he had been trying to make his solo cross country before he went home. I sat my RT practical with him the day before.
The requirements for the NPPL are:
NATIONAL PRIVATE PILOT LICENCE
Simple Single-engine Aeroplane (SSEA) Course
Simple Single-engine Aeroplane (SSEA) Course
COURSE OBJECTIVES
The course shall be designed so that student pilots are given adequate theoretical knowledge and flight training in order to ensure they are capable of safely operating an aeroplane whilst flying in weather conditions appropriate to the visual flight rules.
The course shall be designed so that student pilots are given adequate theoretical knowledge and flight training in order to ensure they are capable of safely operating an aeroplane whilst flying in weather conditions appropriate to the visual flight rules.
COURSE DESCRIPTION
The course shall be undertaken at a UK flying club/school or flying training organisation
The course shall be undertaken at a UK flying club/school or flying training organisation
Which means a UK flying club/school or FTO, not one in the US.
However, credit towards the NPPL (SSEA) will be given for flying training conducted elsewhere on a case-by-case basis - provided that the training has been conducted by a JAR-FCL FI. That means a real JAR-FCL FI, not someone else allegedly 'supervised' by a JAR-FCL FI.
I will remind NPLG Ltd to be aware of these requirements.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Denmark
Age: 58
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to see this thread fall to simpel arguments.
I know OBA, PPL'd there in the Liberty (august 6) and was very sorry to hear that a student, who I haven't met, crashed. Accidents unfortunately happen, and we learn from them. I hope and pray, that the student recovers.
When I was at OBA (had to go there twice due to bad weather), safety was the no. 1 priority for the instructors and for Ken and Bill in flightops. Even the slightest technical problem with any OBA plane was imidiatly handled by the very professional mechanics. Who was there 7 days a week, always ready and competent. Weather was constantly a problem (Sunny Florida....not a guarantee for sure!), but the school didn't hesitate to ground us all, if the weather, for example the wind conditions, wasn't safe. The rule for solo flight was max 12 knots, max 6 knot crosswind factor and no gusts.
I met and spoke to Thomson three times. At all occasions he was friendly, helpfull, professional and positive.
The Liberty isn't the easiest plane, but the instructors know it, and they train the students accordingly. Unfortunately this cannot 100 % prevent accidents. Of course things can go wrong.
Let's try and keep a discussion like this, originating from a terrible accident, at a mature and wellfounded level.
Regards Rune, Denmark
I know OBA, PPL'd there in the Liberty (august 6) and was very sorry to hear that a student, who I haven't met, crashed. Accidents unfortunately happen, and we learn from them. I hope and pray, that the student recovers.
When I was at OBA (had to go there twice due to bad weather), safety was the no. 1 priority for the instructors and for Ken and Bill in flightops. Even the slightest technical problem with any OBA plane was imidiatly handled by the very professional mechanics. Who was there 7 days a week, always ready and competent. Weather was constantly a problem (Sunny Florida....not a guarantee for sure!), but the school didn't hesitate to ground us all, if the weather, for example the wind conditions, wasn't safe. The rule for solo flight was max 12 knots, max 6 knot crosswind factor and no gusts.
I met and spoke to Thomson three times. At all occasions he was friendly, helpfull, professional and positive.
The Liberty isn't the easiest plane, but the instructors know it, and they train the students accordingly. Unfortunately this cannot 100 % prevent accidents. Of course things can go wrong.
Let's try and keep a discussion like this, originating from a terrible accident, at a mature and wellfounded level.
Regards Rune, Denmark
Hour Builder
How is the pilot of the liberty doing?
HB - Good luck with the CPL skills test mate, and the ATPL's.
Never mind Andy, one day you might be ferried around by HB himself! You obviously are a very bitter person.
As for the accidents you mention. Prop-strikes and tail-strikes are usually pilot errors, and a canopy came off! wow, I've done AEF in the Chipmunk with the frigger open all the way! Big deal. PA28 doors pop open for fun, so do C152/172 windows.
If you want twitchy landings, try the G109. Tail-dragger. 57-ft wingspan. Ground effect. Hundreds of young cadets manage it each year.
As for "cross-country should be done in UK" the rest of the world -USA included- turns out thousands of competent pilots each year.
Grow up man.
HB - Good luck with the CPL skills test mate, and the ATPL's.
Never mind Andy, one day you might be ferried around by HB himself! You obviously are a very bitter person.
As for the accidents you mention. Prop-strikes and tail-strikes are usually pilot errors, and a canopy came off! wow, I've done AEF in the Chipmunk with the frigger open all the way! Big deal. PA28 doors pop open for fun, so do C152/172 windows.
If you want twitchy landings, try the G109. Tail-dragger. 57-ft wingspan. Ground effect. Hundreds of young cadets manage it each year.
As for "cross-country should be done in UK" the rest of the world -USA included- turns out thousands of competent pilots each year.
Grow up man.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: NORTHEAST ENGLAND
Age: 41
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hour Builder good luck with the ATPL’s .
Will you be going over to OBA to do your CPL? I’m starting my CPL with them next week and really looking forward to it. Every time I have spoken with Adrian he has been nothing but helpful and professional.
Think Andy has had one too many pints of orange juice!!
Will you be going over to OBA to do your CPL? I’m starting my CPL with them next week and really looking forward to it. Every time I have spoken with Adrian he has been nothing but helpful and professional.
Think Andy has had one too many pints of orange juice!!
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 69
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always made it an absolute rule NOT to edit a thread that has been "taken under the wing" of another moderator, but I'm disgusted at the messages I've edited out.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves. The forum is for PROFESSIONAL training. You were all beyond juvenile.
The messages are, however, stored in the Toolshed and WWW is welcome to put them back if he sees fit. On the other hand, he may see fit to take his own action.
A sad day for PPRuNe to read stuff like that. Very sad.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves. The forum is for PROFESSIONAL training. You were all beyond juvenile.
The messages are, however, stored in the Toolshed and WWW is welcome to put them back if he sees fit. On the other hand, he may see fit to take his own action.
A sad day for PPRuNe to read stuff like that. Very sad.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Ormond Beach FL USA
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB 6120 Narrative - Aircraft Accident N550XL
NTSB 6120 Narrative - Aircraft Accident N550XL
1. As the above is now a matter of public record it is copied to this forum:
"The company has a policy and standard operating procedure (SOP) for all solo operations that "touch and go's" are not permitted.
Additionally for Student pilots undergoing solo flight the following additional limitations are endorsed:
Max. Wind: 12 knots
Max Crosswind: 06 knots
Visibility: 5 s.m.
Ceiling: 2,000 feet
The day prior to the accident the Student achieved solo status and pre-solo training requirements under FAA FAR Part 61. The required endorsements were made to his Student Pilot Certificate and logbook including the limiting SOP's. The student was briefed prior to the first solo flight that he was to make only one circuit of the traffic pattern and land to a full stop. He executed this flight successfully and without problem.
During the post first solo de-briefing the Student Pilot was informed of the limitations applicable to his solo operation of the aircraft and specifically that "touch and go's" were prohibited.
A second solo flight that followed a dual training flight was carried out later that day. During this flight the Student Pilot was observed executing "touch and go's". Post this flight the Student was debriefed by both the instructor that authorized his initial solo and the instructor who conducted the flight immediately prior. He was reminded of the limitations applicable to his solo authorization and told in no uncertain terms that "touch and go's" were prohibited.
On the day of the accident, the Student Pilot was executing his third solo flight following a successful dual training flight during which go-arounds were again practiced. The first landing was made to a full stop and a taxi back executed. During the second circuit ATC broadcast a report, two possibly three times, that winds were gusting to 14 knots. The student pilot executed a touch and go on his next landing and the tower questioned his actions, he apologized.
During the third approach to landing, the Student Pilot executed a go-around, during which the aircraft was observed to climbing poorly and appeared to be at a slow airspeed. During the go-around the aircraft started to traverse to the left heading directly towards the VOR and VHF antenna installation. Shortly before collision with the VOR and VHF antenna installation the aircraft was observed to abruptly pitch up whereupon it commenced to yaw and roll to the left. The aircraft then stalled, hit the ground suffering severe structural damage after which a fire started and destroyed the aircraft. The Student Pilot exited the aircraft unaided but after the fire had started.
Post accident examination of the accident site and aircraft confirmed that the engine was operating at a high or full power setting evidenced by the multiple propeller strike marks on the ground and the wing flaps were at 30 degrees (full-flap) at the time of impact.
2. The Pilot
Our understanding is that the pilot is continuing to make good progress in recovery from his post accident injuries having been listed as “critical and unstable” at the time of admission to hospital. All at OBA wish him a speedy and full recovery and our thoughts are with him.
3. NPPL Training
OBA does not conduct training for the NPPL and never have. Any issues with prior JAA flying training being acceptable for credit towards an NPPL are a matter for the FTO executing the training for the NPPL, the CAA and nothing to do with OBA.
4. Posts by Andy Nichols
We are very sorry that you did not complete your JAA PPL Completion training on the Piper PA28 (not Liberty XL2) with us post the flying you had completed in the UK.
You are aware that this resulted from you being unable to be authorised to execute your Qualifying Cross Country (Q X/C) flight due the metrological conditions being outside the safety limits that OBA very sensibly impose on student pilots.
You were only with us for 10 days as I recall to attempt to complete your JAA PPL.
Given the circumstances of this accident it appears that the OBA student pilot operational limitations are there for good reason, safety!
I am very glad we did not allow you to “push us” to authorise you to fly outside our student pilot limitations as it is self evident that there is good reason why we have them.
Given your behaviour since your return to the UK post your unsuccessful course completion (due to weather) I can only imagine what we would have been dealing with had we allowed to you fly when conditions were not within OBA limitations and you had had a similar situation to the one above.
You are also aware that you could not execute training for a JAA Night Qualification until all the requirements of the JAA PPL syllabus were completed, including the QXC flight. (See CAA LASORS for reference).
The friend who accompanied you for training for an IMC rating did successfully complete his course and has never to my knowledge ever posted on this or any other pilot forum.
As far as I am aware all matters between us are resolved so quite why you take every opportunity to post negative information on OBA and comment on the operations of the Liberty XL2 (an aircraft you have never flown) is a mystery.
5. Posts by JABI
I have no idea who “JABI” is (maybe he/she will publicly identify themselves here on this post, possible but unlikely!) but having researched his/her posts they almost exclusively focus on U.S. FTO’s, accidents and absolutely anything negative that can be found with U.S. flying training, I suspect without any first hand knowledge.
Clearly “JABI” is motivated by something other than “balanced, constructive and truthful” comment as evidenced by the “mathematical” comparison of C150 and Liberty XL2 accident statistics, where the "few" Liberty XL2's operating are virtually all used in a heavily utilized training environment and the large number of C150’s are used in a variety of different theaters of operation, from minimal private owner operation to flying schools. I also strongly suspect that more than half of the C150’s registered are not even in an operational condition and never fly.
Any aircraft that is operated exclusively in a training environment will have a far higher accident/incident rate that one which is not or, has a broad mix of operational environment. The Robinson R22 is a prime example of this situation as due to its use in a primary training role, its accident and incident rate was statistically extremely high, did it make it unsafe NO, it was the role in which it was used that caused the statistics.
PPRuNers can draw there own conclusions on “JABI” posts.
6. Aircraft Accidents
Anyone who engages in general aviation flying whether as a pilot or passenger must surely realise that this is classed as a “hazardous pursuit” as is Skiing, Parachuting, Mountain Climbing, Motor Car Racing/Rallying etc. and that engaging in these pursuits has inherent risk to be exposed to bodily injury or death.
Aviation accidents attract huge media speculation and publicity, it sells their publications/television and therefore their advertising.
Fortunately aircraft accidents are a rare occurrence unlike the literally thousands of fatal car accidents that occur each day and therefore attract little or no media “hype”.
Additionally there is always speculation in aircraft accidents generally that they occur due to technical issues or mechanical failure, in reality the vast majority are caused by human (Pilot) error.
You never hear this type of speculation in car accidents e.g. when someone “rear ends” another car - “The Department of Transport are investing possible brake failure as the cause of the accident and resultant fatality”, no it is just that the person who hit you was traveling too close and too fast to stop!
Neither do we ever hear that Hertz or Avis, the owner of the vehicle involved were asked for information on the accident and replied “no comment”!
7. The Liberty XL2
Some on this posting have commented as to the suitability of the Liberty XL2 in a training role, most of the negative comment comes from individuals who have no knowledge of the aircraft and have never flown it or in it. Draw your own conclusions here.
Does the XL2 have its own specific handling characteristics, YES! Does it handle like a C150/PA28/AA5 – NO, it is a different aircraft!
Do XL2/C150/PA28/AA5 aircraft types have there own idiosyncrasies, yes of course they do, but given training in the type this is no problem to any competent individual provided they operate the aircraft as trained and comply with its/their limitations.
Incidentally the Liberty XL2 achieved full certification in Europe with EASA earlier this year (another factual error in this posting correted).
8. OBA Operational Limitations
OBA has been training pilots in a primary role since 1991. Over the years we have experienced almost every issue imaginable, new ones do surface from time to time and we would naïve to believe otherwise.
We closely monitor all flying training and PIC flying and impose strict limits on pilot operation of our aircraft, often to our detriment both financially and from the negative PR generated as a result when individuals think they are capable of flying under conditions outside our operational limits which are:
OBA policy and standard operating procedure (SOP) for all solo operations no"touch and go's".
Additionally for Student pilots undergoing solo flight the following additional limitations are endorsed:
Max. Wind: 12 knots
Max Crosswind: 06 knots
Visibility:5 s.m.
Ceiling: 2,000 feet
We impose these limits for good reason, SAFETY.
In the Dirty Harry film Clint Eastwood said “It is a good man who knows his limitations” regrettably some pilots do not know their limitations are often over confident and reckless generally.
When a pilot is flying solo an instructor cannot be present to "hold your hand" and stop you getting into trouble by operating in conditions outside your abilities or "catch" your mistakes. This why OBA impose limitations on solo and PIC operations. Regrettably some pilots do not comply with these limits or “push” to be excluded from them.
The results of this kind of behaviour speak for themselves.
Regards,
Adrian Thompson
President OBA
1. As the above is now a matter of public record it is copied to this forum:
"The company has a policy and standard operating procedure (SOP) for all solo operations that "touch and go's" are not permitted.
Additionally for Student pilots undergoing solo flight the following additional limitations are endorsed:
Max. Wind: 12 knots
Max Crosswind: 06 knots
Visibility: 5 s.m.
Ceiling: 2,000 feet
The day prior to the accident the Student achieved solo status and pre-solo training requirements under FAA FAR Part 61. The required endorsements were made to his Student Pilot Certificate and logbook including the limiting SOP's. The student was briefed prior to the first solo flight that he was to make only one circuit of the traffic pattern and land to a full stop. He executed this flight successfully and without problem.
During the post first solo de-briefing the Student Pilot was informed of the limitations applicable to his solo operation of the aircraft and specifically that "touch and go's" were prohibited.
A second solo flight that followed a dual training flight was carried out later that day. During this flight the Student Pilot was observed executing "touch and go's". Post this flight the Student was debriefed by both the instructor that authorized his initial solo and the instructor who conducted the flight immediately prior. He was reminded of the limitations applicable to his solo authorization and told in no uncertain terms that "touch and go's" were prohibited.
On the day of the accident, the Student Pilot was executing his third solo flight following a successful dual training flight during which go-arounds were again practiced. The first landing was made to a full stop and a taxi back executed. During the second circuit ATC broadcast a report, two possibly three times, that winds were gusting to 14 knots. The student pilot executed a touch and go on his next landing and the tower questioned his actions, he apologized.
During the third approach to landing, the Student Pilot executed a go-around, during which the aircraft was observed to climbing poorly and appeared to be at a slow airspeed. During the go-around the aircraft started to traverse to the left heading directly towards the VOR and VHF antenna installation. Shortly before collision with the VOR and VHF antenna installation the aircraft was observed to abruptly pitch up whereupon it commenced to yaw and roll to the left. The aircraft then stalled, hit the ground suffering severe structural damage after which a fire started and destroyed the aircraft. The Student Pilot exited the aircraft unaided but after the fire had started.
Post accident examination of the accident site and aircraft confirmed that the engine was operating at a high or full power setting evidenced by the multiple propeller strike marks on the ground and the wing flaps were at 30 degrees (full-flap) at the time of impact.
2. The Pilot
Our understanding is that the pilot is continuing to make good progress in recovery from his post accident injuries having been listed as “critical and unstable” at the time of admission to hospital. All at OBA wish him a speedy and full recovery and our thoughts are with him.
3. NPPL Training
OBA does not conduct training for the NPPL and never have. Any issues with prior JAA flying training being acceptable for credit towards an NPPL are a matter for the FTO executing the training for the NPPL, the CAA and nothing to do with OBA.
4. Posts by Andy Nichols
We are very sorry that you did not complete your JAA PPL Completion training on the Piper PA28 (not Liberty XL2) with us post the flying you had completed in the UK.
You are aware that this resulted from you being unable to be authorised to execute your Qualifying Cross Country (Q X/C) flight due the metrological conditions being outside the safety limits that OBA very sensibly impose on student pilots.
You were only with us for 10 days as I recall to attempt to complete your JAA PPL.
Given the circumstances of this accident it appears that the OBA student pilot operational limitations are there for good reason, safety!
I am very glad we did not allow you to “push us” to authorise you to fly outside our student pilot limitations as it is self evident that there is good reason why we have them.
Given your behaviour since your return to the UK post your unsuccessful course completion (due to weather) I can only imagine what we would have been dealing with had we allowed to you fly when conditions were not within OBA limitations and you had had a similar situation to the one above.
You are also aware that you could not execute training for a JAA Night Qualification until all the requirements of the JAA PPL syllabus were completed, including the QXC flight. (See CAA LASORS for reference).
The friend who accompanied you for training for an IMC rating did successfully complete his course and has never to my knowledge ever posted on this or any other pilot forum.
As far as I am aware all matters between us are resolved so quite why you take every opportunity to post negative information on OBA and comment on the operations of the Liberty XL2 (an aircraft you have never flown) is a mystery.
5. Posts by JABI
I have no idea who “JABI” is (maybe he/she will publicly identify themselves here on this post, possible but unlikely!) but having researched his/her posts they almost exclusively focus on U.S. FTO’s, accidents and absolutely anything negative that can be found with U.S. flying training, I suspect without any first hand knowledge.
Clearly “JABI” is motivated by something other than “balanced, constructive and truthful” comment as evidenced by the “mathematical” comparison of C150 and Liberty XL2 accident statistics, where the "few" Liberty XL2's operating are virtually all used in a heavily utilized training environment and the large number of C150’s are used in a variety of different theaters of operation, from minimal private owner operation to flying schools. I also strongly suspect that more than half of the C150’s registered are not even in an operational condition and never fly.
Any aircraft that is operated exclusively in a training environment will have a far higher accident/incident rate that one which is not or, has a broad mix of operational environment. The Robinson R22 is a prime example of this situation as due to its use in a primary training role, its accident and incident rate was statistically extremely high, did it make it unsafe NO, it was the role in which it was used that caused the statistics.
PPRuNers can draw there own conclusions on “JABI” posts.
6. Aircraft Accidents
Anyone who engages in general aviation flying whether as a pilot or passenger must surely realise that this is classed as a “hazardous pursuit” as is Skiing, Parachuting, Mountain Climbing, Motor Car Racing/Rallying etc. and that engaging in these pursuits has inherent risk to be exposed to bodily injury or death.
Aviation accidents attract huge media speculation and publicity, it sells their publications/television and therefore their advertising.
Fortunately aircraft accidents are a rare occurrence unlike the literally thousands of fatal car accidents that occur each day and therefore attract little or no media “hype”.
Additionally there is always speculation in aircraft accidents generally that they occur due to technical issues or mechanical failure, in reality the vast majority are caused by human (Pilot) error.
You never hear this type of speculation in car accidents e.g. when someone “rear ends” another car - “The Department of Transport are investing possible brake failure as the cause of the accident and resultant fatality”, no it is just that the person who hit you was traveling too close and too fast to stop!
Neither do we ever hear that Hertz or Avis, the owner of the vehicle involved were asked for information on the accident and replied “no comment”!
7. The Liberty XL2
Some on this posting have commented as to the suitability of the Liberty XL2 in a training role, most of the negative comment comes from individuals who have no knowledge of the aircraft and have never flown it or in it. Draw your own conclusions here.
Does the XL2 have its own specific handling characteristics, YES! Does it handle like a C150/PA28/AA5 – NO, it is a different aircraft!
Do XL2/C150/PA28/AA5 aircraft types have there own idiosyncrasies, yes of course they do, but given training in the type this is no problem to any competent individual provided they operate the aircraft as trained and comply with its/their limitations.
Incidentally the Liberty XL2 achieved full certification in Europe with EASA earlier this year (another factual error in this posting correted).
8. OBA Operational Limitations
OBA has been training pilots in a primary role since 1991. Over the years we have experienced almost every issue imaginable, new ones do surface from time to time and we would naïve to believe otherwise.
We closely monitor all flying training and PIC flying and impose strict limits on pilot operation of our aircraft, often to our detriment both financially and from the negative PR generated as a result when individuals think they are capable of flying under conditions outside our operational limits which are:
OBA policy and standard operating procedure (SOP) for all solo operations no"touch and go's".
Additionally for Student pilots undergoing solo flight the following additional limitations are endorsed:
Max. Wind: 12 knots
Max Crosswind: 06 knots
Visibility:5 s.m.
Ceiling: 2,000 feet
We impose these limits for good reason, SAFETY.
In the Dirty Harry film Clint Eastwood said “It is a good man who knows his limitations” regrettably some pilots do not know their limitations are often over confident and reckless generally.
When a pilot is flying solo an instructor cannot be present to "hold your hand" and stop you getting into trouble by operating in conditions outside your abilities or "catch" your mistakes. This why OBA impose limitations on solo and PIC operations. Regrettably some pilots do not comply with these limits or “push” to be excluded from them.
The results of this kind of behaviour speak for themselves.
Regards,
Adrian Thompson
President OBA
Last edited by OBA; 4th Sep 2007 at 00:46.
I have feared for some time that this thread would wander dangerously off course and I issued a few posts in anticipation.
Unfortunately one or two people with agendas have caused unnecessary problems by posting untrue, unhelpful and unwanted messages. They have been removed and the instigator is now banned.
I hope that will be an end to it.
I strongly suspect that the A.N. who posted the obnoxious material is a former failed customer of OBA and all comments and allegations made by him should be disregarded.
I'm no mate of Adrian Thompson and no advocate of OBA or learning to fly in Florida but I WILL NOT tolerate libelous allegations and mischief making about FTO's on this forum. Any attempt will result in an immediate ban.
Adrian, I welcome your informative posting on this thread, thank you.
WWW
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little more info...
Hi,
Thankfully the pilot survived, that is the main thing.
I spoke to Orlando Beach Aviation in the week following the accident, from the perspective of someone researching which school to go with for my PPL. I asked if the accident would have implications for me looking to train later this year.
In short, there wouldn't be any implications. The pilot, was carrying out a touch and go, specifically against instruction. He had already been warned the previous day that he should not attempt a touch and go but chose to disregard this instruction, did it again and lost control.
Horrendous as the accident was, a solo flight is surely just that and no one outside of the plane can do anything if someone chooses to deviate from what they have been briefed to do.
That incident in itself did not put me off going with OFA, I especially was drawn to the fact that they have the new fleet of Liberty aircraft rather than some 25 year old machines that have been knocked around a bit.
I'm set now to start my course in about 3 months. The advice that I would love now, is having just received my study pack for the PPL, is where do I start with the modules? Beging with the one on law and then progress to...?
I'd be grateful for any help.
Regards,
Jason
Thankfully the pilot survived, that is the main thing.
I spoke to Orlando Beach Aviation in the week following the accident, from the perspective of someone researching which school to go with for my PPL. I asked if the accident would have implications for me looking to train later this year.
In short, there wouldn't be any implications. The pilot, was carrying out a touch and go, specifically against instruction. He had already been warned the previous day that he should not attempt a touch and go but chose to disregard this instruction, did it again and lost control.
Horrendous as the accident was, a solo flight is surely just that and no one outside of the plane can do anything if someone chooses to deviate from what they have been briefed to do.
That incident in itself did not put me off going with OFA, I especially was drawn to the fact that they have the new fleet of Liberty aircraft rather than some 25 year old machines that have been knocked around a bit.
I'm set now to start my course in about 3 months. The advice that I would love now, is having just received my study pack for the PPL, is where do I start with the modules? Beging with the one on law and then progress to...?
I'd be grateful for any help.
Regards,
Jason
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pilot, was carrying out a touch and go, specifically against instruction
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Scary Eire
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that a school should ban touch and goes especially when low houred PPL students are concerned. Their level of experience is too low to cope with all that is going on and this is when the danger creeps in.
I don't think it is necessarily a competence issue, as in how good their take-offs/landings are, but it is a human factors issue.
I do think a blanket ban is a good thing and then once the student is assessed and shows they can deal with touch and goes, then it should be lifted.
I know it's a pain in the @rse for the person concerned taxying around to take-off again, but at the end of the day, it is a safety issue and in my eyes, it is well justified.
I don't think it is necessarily a competence issue, as in how good their take-offs/landings are, but it is a human factors issue.
I do think a blanket ban is a good thing and then once the student is assessed and shows they can deal with touch and goes, then it should be lifted.
I know it's a pain in the @rse for the person concerned taxying around to take-off again, but at the end of the day, it is a safety issue and in my eyes, it is well justified.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe your right, but I did touch and goes from my second solo onwards and never had a problem. I did find though it was a good idea to slow to a walking pace in the Super Cub while I dumped the flap, checked the carb heat was off before going again- with a crosswind the take off swing can be quite severe. But in a nose gear spam can I really don't see the issue with touch and goes.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Warks
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a strange rule? I've been instructing for a while now. I've also been involved with several flying schools in one capacity or another and I've never heard of such a rule. I can only see it being an issue on very short runways. Is it mainly an american rule of are there schools in the UK with this rule?
TB
TB
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Scary Eire
Posts: 296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would surprised at how many people get a total mental overload when they start flying. Some people take to it like a duck to water and cope very very well and have no problems, like yourself CT.
I know of someone who was killed doing a touch and go and was a very low houred PPLer. The error that was made (whether it was pilot error or mechanical, I do not know) was that the flap was not retracted for take-off and in my opinion, if a touch and go was not performed in this instance, the tragedy could have been avoided.
So, when it comes to PPL students (early on in the PPL), I say they are a no-no, but once they demonstrate they can do a touch and go without any major hassles, then lift the ban on them...but that is only my own opinion.
I know of someone who was killed doing a touch and go and was a very low houred PPLer. The error that was made (whether it was pilot error or mechanical, I do not know) was that the flap was not retracted for take-off and in my opinion, if a touch and go was not performed in this instance, the tragedy could have been avoided.
So, when it comes to PPL students (early on in the PPL), I say they are a no-no, but once they demonstrate they can do a touch and go without any major hassles, then lift the ban on them...but that is only my own opinion.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am amazed that this pilot ignored distinct instructions not to t+g on various occasions and had been censured during a debrief.
It would be interesting to know what was on the ATC tapes ie if the pilot had requested clearance to land or clearance for touch and go, or clearance for the option (an american expresiion which icludes landing, t+g or go around). The contollers are familliar with the t+g policy at OBA and know that solo students are require to land and taxi back.
AFAIK the reason for the no t+g policy at OBA is due to a solo student failing to raise the flaps on a t+g until airborne, the resulting sink caused the plane to end up in the trees at the end of the runway. Don't know how true this is but that is the story that was going around when I was there about 5 years ago.
The student pilot executed a touch and go on his next landing and the tower questioned his actions, he apologized.
AFAIK the reason for the no t+g policy at OBA is due to a solo student failing to raise the flaps on a t+g until airborne, the resulting sink caused the plane to end up in the trees at the end of the runway. Don't know how true this is but that is the story that was going around when I was there about 5 years ago.
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clearance for the option
As far as trees at the end of the runway are concerned, yes they are there and they could pose a problem if you got sink after retracting the flaps. I think the accident in which a plane crashed on the golf course a few years ago was caused by this and actually I think this was with an instructor as well...the runways are 17/35 3700ft and 8/26 4000ft.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the pilot went ahead and executed a touch and go on a landing clearance this could have many ramifications such as separation. ie a plane ahead in the circuit may be slower than the aircraft doing the touch and go. Would it be an offence to totally disregard a landing clearance and execute a t+g?