OBA Crash

[Silent Witness]

Ormond Beach Student Issues

Is the OBA strict weather minima really a safety issue? From reports it would seem that most of the accidents at the school are pilot related, when the strict wind restrictions were not applicable.

All the OBA advertisements proclaim “Come fly with us in the clear Florida skies”. The sky is clear, but sadly the wind is ever present. This is something not considered by potential students looking at flight training establishments. They look at one thing, COST.

‘We impose these limits for good reason, SAFETY. It would appear another reason for these restrictive limits is MONEY.

You see the logic is simple, bad weather, no flying. And because you didn’t accrue the hours guess what, your FREE night rating slips away. Then you have to cancel, then more of your money is held as a 'cancellation fee'.

So the weather or more likely the wind has restricted your flight to such an extent that you can’t finish your training. You then get landed with a ‘cancellation fee’. But you didn’t cancel, you just didn’t finish your training due to the fact that it was windy. And then guess what. Rather than being handed your refund, minus the cancellation fee, you have to wait for it to be posted to the UK. Why? Because you are often charged for things you simply shouldn’t be charged for. For example, airport transfer fees. A Student had his own transport, yet OBA charged him for airport transfers? As you only notice this when you return to the UK, it’s difficult to argue the point.

You see you pay for your ‘package’ with ‘no hidden extras’. It seems however all students are sold ADDITIONAL insurance upon commencing training. All off them HAD insurance, from a source recommended by guess who, OBA!

I have been spoken to several students who, already qualified, had gone to OBA for IMC CPL etc. On arrival no paperwork had arrived from the CAA. Result, no solo flying. Regardless of who was a fault, could OBA not contact these students so they could sort out the problems before committing themselves to flight training at OBA?

By all accounts instructors at OBA are to be praised. But some disgusting practices are sometimes observed by the OBA management. The worst reported was during an RT exam. A student was told to forget about the Mayday relay section of the test because the rubber dingy only had ‘Pakis in it’.

Maybe the Welsh Weasel will have the backbone to leave this item posted.

SW

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

Bit rash challenging my backbone isn't it Mr Witness?

Regardless, your post stands. It suggests to most readers of it that you were a slightly underprepared disorganised student who has little experience upon which to judge a basic flying school.

Doubtless your experience will be useful for some. I've never recommended OBA or indeed basic training in Florida but many do it every year and are happy with it and the cost savings it does bring.

Cheers

WWW

[Shamrogue]

Wondering alittle off topic

I recently read a report of a BMi operaton from Dub to LHR where a problem occurred on the ground. 3 passengers commented and gave 3 completely different answers to the issue.
Now, there is a point where people have to stand up for themselves and make judgements. If you can't make the judgement or you are not happy - you ask someone. Or advise of a doubt etc. We all do jobs and every so often you must converse with your boss/partner or whatever. Flying instructors are like condoms. They are there for your safety (and to teach), but they are not all perfect all of the time. To error is human and we as people must understand that and sometimes you have to query it. I know we have to trusts the chap in the seat beside us but you can open your mouth and ask.
I have no doubt that the instructor turned about and sent a student solo without being happy. From my own training point in OBA, I was flippin worn out doing stalls etc but I really felt I left the place more pro-effecient than when I arrived. No extra costs etc. Again, I'll refer back to a comment from the past. ON my flight test day, I got in because another chap didn't bother turning up for his - due to the fact he went on the lash the night before. And yet this chap complained that OBA wouldn't let him or wasn't able to let him have his flight test in time. Therefore incurring extra charges etc. but if I had just heard his side of the story I would have been mad with OBA. But then I saw his name on the list, found out where he was and then I took his place, did my test and happy days.
Sorry to rant and rave on this. But, when training you need a bit of bad weather **** it the skies aren't always clear. You need to know what bumps feel like. What do you want AT to do "come fly the semi cloudy, might be rainy, could be a CB skies of Florida".................We all know the "come fly the friendly skies"...........advert and things don't always turn out to be as they should be.
OK. Stopping here. Rant over..............for now.
Shamrogue

[Kengineer-130]

‘We impose these limits for good reason, SAFETY. It would appear another reason for these restrictive limits is MONEY.

Nice post, well thought out ... Have you ever been to OBA? Have you ever spoken to any of the OBA staff? I saw a few people leave after not getting chance to finish their PPL, some due to weather, some due to poor planning time wise etc, on ALL occasions, the deal is that they keep your money on credit for a year giving you chance to come back and finish the job, or you pay for the training you have recived and get the rest back, minus a small fee that ANY company (think insurance etc) will charge to cover thier admin costs.....

And I can vouch for the OBA imposed "wind limits" being there for a damn good reason, would you let a 20 hour TT recently solo student fly in a 25kts wind??? there are some very very silly ideas people come up with....

[smith]

sw

You see the logic is simple, bad weather, no flying. And because you didn’t accrue the hours guess what, your FREE night rating slips away

The way it works with the CAA and OBA is that the 5 hours required for the night rating can and is inlcluded in the 45 hours for PPL issue. OBA use this fact to push more students through in less time as the plane can be utilised at night as well as during the day. It doesn't cost OBA any more time or money to do the Night rating however it leads to a more efficient utilisation of their machines.

As it works out if you fail to make the hours due to wx its highly likely you will have already fulfilled the Night requirements. The upshot is if you don't gain the NR it is not because it slips away, its because the wx has actually been really rubbish or you don't cut the mustard. The Night R at OBA is not a free add add on it is a method to keep their a/c in the air longer, push more students through in shorter time and thus being efficiently run.

[Beefy_EMA]

I think the recent events in Phuket illustrate this well as early investigations suggest the pilot attempted a go-around in high winds (ring any bells?) and clearly failed.

I was taught, every landing is a potential 'go around', you should never force a landing, with one only exception, when you don't have a working engine.

I am not sure why a 'touch and go' would cause more problems than a normal take off. When your rolling, get rid of the flap, set the trim and turn carb heat off. The take off is exactly the same, except you have the added advantage of already being in motion.

Maybe I had it too good, learning on a 3000m runway.

[Contacttower]

Maybe I had it too good learning, on a 3000m runway.

Hundreds of FTOs in Britain and many other countries teach students on 800m of grass and allow solo touch and goes almost from day one...if they couldn't manage a touch and go without help then they wouldn't be considered ready to go solo.

[Beefy_EMA]

Hundreds of FTOs in Britain and many other countries teach students on 800m of grass and allow solo touch and goes almost from day one...if they couldn't manage a touch and go without help then they wouldn't be considered ready to go solo.

Maybe you missed my sarcasm for talktomegoose.

And yes, as long as you don't come in high, touch and go on 800m of grass is the norm, albeit a little bumpy. Eg 22 at EGNA, great circuits.

[grob.1]

Any news on the student?

[talktomegoose]

Go around/Touch and Go

Fair comment Beefy EMA.
You are 100% right that every landing should be treated as a potential go-around. I used the phuket incident as an example of where an uncontrolled approach in bad weather does not always leave you with the OPTION of a go-around.
I also agree that under certain circumstances touch and goes are suitible for students. However there may be specific reasons why students don't do touch and goes at OBA.
The flap control on an XL2 is not the 'set and forget' type that you would find in warriors/152s etc in UK flying schools. You actually have to hold your finger on the button whilst the flaps move to the required position, meaning you are flying one-handed over the runway (no hand left to push the power up). This design problem has been expressed by many XL2 pilots.

[Ste88]

hello guys....


I'm looking for an JAA approved school in USA so I have found this school which offers a JAA atpl frozen at 37960€ with accomodation in Florida included...but I'm reading this thread and....I'm very worried....

Could I have some advice?

I have found also Orlando flight training....

what is the best to take a JAA ATPL FROZEN COURSE?!?!

[Warrior2]

OBA is a great place to fly, please dont let this thread put you off. It can happen anywhere to any flightschool, Flying is a risk, your increased skill and training can reduce that risk.
Regards the ATPL prep, it really is a good price for what you get. I did the PPL there. As im sure you will here from other guys on this forum who are about to start up another "OBA" thread their different opinions, please do not listen to them

Best Regards,

W2

[wnjmurphy]

With regards to the flap switch talktomegoose, whilst it isn't similar to the Cessnas and Pipers of this world, but I am baffled as to why your fiddling with the flap switch over the runway.

On final approach, is it not better to get your flaps set before your anywhere near the runway threshold.

Similarly, on a go-around (where a number of incidents appear to be occuring on the XL-2), is it not full power -> establish safe speed -> bring the flaps in.

Your post suggests that you have to keep your finger on the lever, otherwise the flaps would spring back to a stowed position! This is not the case.

[Hudson_Hawk]

OBA

Definitely a nice place. Been there, done it. A wide range of airplanes, from new FADEC/G450 Libs (however, do bring your fireproof jumpsuits) to PA28s for conservatives and C150/152 for adrenaline junkies. You can get a broad flying experience trying different birds during your hour-building. Also all or most instructors are Riddle graduates with BSc in aeronautics, etc. An ocean of knowledge - use it while you can. No stupid uniforms to sweat in during the hot months and no part 141 bull-! Recommended with

[wobble2plank]

Just my couple of thoughts,

Firstly, my best wishes to the student involved, you are not the first and, sadly, will not be the last to have solo accidents.

WWW, whilst I find your advice to find local schools commendable I feel that with our present governments persistant attack on GA, with fuel tax increases, release of aviation sites to the brown site register and restrictive airspace, many people will have to opt for the USA in the future. The cost per hour added to the trans atlantic flight cost and accomodation still stack up far cheaper than in the UK. Also the Florida weather can be far from beneign.

I changed job a few years ago and as a result I felt I needed to get 'up to speed' with flying a fixed wing aircraft again after a 16 year stint flying helicopters. I went to OBA with a full UK CPL IR to fly for a couple of weeks. At this time I was working as a Flight Safety officer for a large airfield in the UK and a couple of flying clubs as well. The decision to got to Florida was purely financial.

I went to OBA to hire an aircraft, subsequently, during my first couple of hours I wanted to re-familiarise myself with circuit work. I conducted touch and go's which were immediately questioned by the tower. I was then called back into the FBO where I was asked about why I was doing touch and go approaches. Once I explained my position and experience and that I was not an 'authorised solo' I was allowed to continue. During my time I was flying, touch and go's, flapless, glide and side slip approaches. The initial questioning shows the amount of supervision and control the instructors have with a good working relationship with the tower.

The weather in Florida played a great factor with CB's and TCu rarely seen within the UK. This led to cancelled cross country trips for many of the students. There was always a weather window available it just meant some students having to be ready to fly at 6:00 AM. Some of the students were not prepared to do this.

There was also a case where one instructor did not believe his student was ready to solo. The student in question flew with antoher instructor who agreed he was unsuitable. This student was a young lad who seemed somewhat unaware of his limitations which had been picked up by the staff at the school. The student went on to protest that the school was trying to wring money out of him by not letting him solo. To me this was clearly not the case.

The aircraft I flew, a PA28 warrior, was well serviced, mechanically sound and any malfunctions were quickly rectified by a good engineering team. Whilst the interior 'decor' was somewhat delapidated it was perfectly fit for task.

Student cross country flights were also very carefully monitored for student aptitude and weather. These decisions again were often contested as decesions to slow the students progress and to wring more money out of them. I however often ended up diverting to small airfields to wait out the next 'band' of CB's marching across without being able to inform ATC due to extreme radio static. Such a scenario would be a nightmare for a solo student away from the circuit on their own.

To sum up, I was not a student at OBA but shared the accomodation with them and chatted in the evenings. From my personal perspective the training on offer was safe and well organised. The staff spotted the 'over enthusiastic' amongst the students and handled them well. You are not, unfortunately going to spot every single incident building.

The pilot in question in this incident had been warned about deviating from the regulations and paid a high price. I don't feel blame can be laid at the schools door unless the FAA investigation team reports differently. Could AT have said anything else other than 'no comment' I feel not as the FAA would have impounded all relevant logbooks, licences, maintainence documentation and operators certificate. Careless words etc.

I found OBA well run and inherently safe and would recommend it further.
W2P

[WindFarmer]

Liberty Incident at St Augustine

Hi

I have just found this thread. I was involved in a Liberty incident at St Augustine. Below is a copy (with names removed) of the report I sent to the FAA.

Please read and draw your own conclusions.

The experience hasn't put me off flying - indeed I thoroughly enjoy it.

Introduction

I am a student pilot at Ormond Beach Aviation in Florida who is learning to fly in a Liberty XL2 aircraft. On 1 January I flew a solo cross-country flight to St Augustine from Ormond Beach in aircraft NxxxXL. On landing the propeller was damaged and the nose-wheel snapped off due to a heavy landing. This report was first written on the date of the incident and has been subsequently updated.

Flying Training

I have been engaged in training for a JAA Private Pilots Licence since early 2005, being a member of XX in England where I undertook 4.5 hours training on a Cessna C172 SP aircraft. Progress in England was slow, mainly due to the demands of work, the distance of the flying club from my home and the vagaries of the British Weather.

In October 2007 I therefore decided to complete my PPL training by booking a complete JAA PPL training course in Florida. I booked my training course on a Cessna C150 aircraft. Whilst the OBA website encouraged training on Liberty aircraft (because they were newer I think) I made the conscious decision to request the Cessna because I had already been flying in a Cessna and because I intended to continue flying in a Cessna following award of my licence.

I arrived at the flying school on the morning of Saturday 1 December 2007 and completed all the necessary contractual paperwork with the flying school for a Cessna 150. I met my instructor X (I am not sure of his second name) who advised me that he would not fly in the Cessna C150 because he was uncomfortable flying it. He strongly suggested we fly the Liberty. Given this advice the paperwork was changed and I started flying the Liberty XL2. This I thoroughly enjoyed with my instructor X and my subsequent instructor X.

My training progressed with my being signed off for solo circuits and solo cross country flights which I thoroughly enjoyed. I have flown a total of approximately 35 hours at Ormond Beach Aviation.

Aircraft

The Aircraft involved in the incident was Liberty XL2 NxxxXL. My flight-plan was checked and my solo flight to St Augustine was approved.

During pre-flight checks and start up the following notice reading “New Prop. Installation Requires re-torque after 1st Flight Downtime approx. 15-30 min. Thanks Maintenance”. I believe this was the first flight of this aircraft following an earlier prop-strike incident.

This earlier incident involved a similar landing two weeks earlier with a fellow student pilot named X X who was also flying solo. I believe this landing involved a lot of ballooning and difficulty in controlling aircraft NxxxXL. There have been a number of other recent prop-strike incidents involving Liberty Aircraft.

Fuelling and pre-flight checks were completed with a dripping fuel valve and defective GPS unit being resolved by the maintenance department. The Take-Off trim lamp did not work, so trim was adjusted by confirming that the two other trim lamps did work and were both extinguished. The free and full control movement check was undertaken and did not give any cause for concern.

Alcohol

Given that the flight took place on 1 January it might be reasonable to think that I had consumed alcohol on the previous evening. In fact I was driving and consumed no alcohol. This could be confirmed by a fellow student X X who I was with on the evening of 31 January. The last I drank was 2 glasses of wine on the evening of 30 January.

The Flight

Due to fuelling activities and visits to maintenance the exact flight departure time was not recorded, although it was around 10:00. Departure was from runway 26 and uneventful, although I did have to work at maintaining a constant climb speed to about 400 feet. After departing Ormond I contacted Daytona Approach and headed north at an altitude of 4500 feet and a speed of approximately 90 knots. I may have had to make more adjustments than usual to establish straight and level flight.

Visibility was good and I headed slightly East of the planned track with the intention of flying a long final approach into St Augustine on Runway 31. I made my initial call to St Augustine Tower at approximately 11 nautical miles from the airport whilst over the coast. I started my descent shortly after this.

I lined up with runway 31 at approximately 4nm from the airport at an altitude of about 1100 feet and obtained a landing clearance. The landing clearance included advice of wind speed and direction (I think). I cannot recall what the advised wind was but it was not significantly different from what I expected. I was subsequently advised that the surface wind at St Augustine was 320/08. Nothing leads me to think that the wind was any different to this.

Final Approach

I slowed down to 80 knots and put the first stage of flaps in at around at 1.5nm from the threshold. This was followed by a reduction in airspeed to 70 knots and an increase in flaps to 30 degrees.

The approach was a little wobbly due to gusts and turbulence but no worse than conditions experienced at other times in my training. A steep approach of 70 knots was maintained until the final flare. All power had been taken out a few seconds before final flare.

In my opinion the approach may have been too steep but was otherwise OK.

Landing

I am not sure I can describe exactly what happened, so rather than trying to mis-explain events I shall try and describe what I am sure of.

I may have levelled out to high, or I may have climbed after levelling out at the correct height.

The final flare almost certainly occurred when the aircraft was too high.

The aircraft was at a very steep angle (ie nose high with the stick well back) before it finally dropped to the runway.

I do not recall braking and I do not recall the aircraft scraping along the runway.

I did not add any power or attempt to make a go-around.

This landing was significantly worse than my usual landings and I cannot explain why.


Post Landing

The propeller was damaged and stopped rotating as a result of the incident, rather than as a result of my switching the engine off.

The aircraft lay aligned with and on the runway centre-line.

The nose wheel snapped off just above the nosewheel, rather than at the joint with the aircraft.

The nose-wheel lay some distance behind the aircraft as did two propeller parts.

I made the aircraft as safe as I could by switching the Fadec, ignition, fuel switch and fuel pump off.

Cause

I understand this aircraft has been involved in two consecutive landing incidents by student solo pilots. This could be a co-incidence or it could be due to some defect with the aircraft. If there were a defect that contributed to both incidents it may well be associated with the pitch control. There was nothing to suggest an issue with the other controls as the aircraft came to rest exactly on the runway centre-line.

The statement from X X regarding his incident should be considered when assessing this incident given the possible relationship between the two.

In my opinion the primary cause of the incident was a poorly executed landing resulting from pilot error and possible aircraft defect.

Note that I am very aware of the adage that “a poor workman blames his tools”. There is no certainty that the pitch control was defective and it is perfectly possible that two consecutive incidents of this type occurred in the same aircraft.

Weakening of the nose gear during the previous flight (where a prop strike also occurred) might have been contributory to the nosewheel collapse.

Students do find Liberty aircraft difficult to land – they are considered less forgiving than other aircraft.

I suggest that the aircraft pitch controls be thoroughly tested before this aircraft flies again.

[Avyator]

I confused myself little bit with the dates here...when did this incident happen? January this year? Or last year?

[Nichibei Aviation]

Very courageous and brave of you to post it in the open, WindFarmer.
There's nothing nastier than the situation you are in, thank god you were safe you never know how a prop strike can work out.

Control issues are not easily tolerated by the FAA and may explain why they have been grounded.

[WindFarmer]

St Augustine Incident Date

Hi

The incident (in post 104) occurred on 1 January 2008

Regards

Windfarmer

[HappyFran]

And I read on another thread that OBA Liberties are grounded and the school is saying nothing !!

Seems like a hell of a coincidence