McRae Crash & Fatal Accident Inquiry
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOUBLE BOGEY,
I'm a little concerned that you may be suggesting more regulation is required in this "Nanny State" of ours. I certainly would not want to see more restrictions to our freedom to fly. 
There will always be unfortunate accidents and crashes. Adding restrictions will impose more limits on those of us that have the experience to enjoy flying carefully and skillfully at low level.
Like I said before I am not a rule-maker, there are experts for that, but I am convinced, and become moreso after every similar accident, that the Low Flying rules need serious attention. If this means reviewing the VMC limits (again) that would also go a long way to reducing CFIT and WX related accidents.
There will always be unfortunate accidents and crashes. Adding restrictions will impose more limits on those of us that have the experience to enjoy flying carefully and skillfully at low level.
Last edited by chopjock; 16th Feb 2009 at 15:01.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOUBLE BOGEY
God let's not advocate yet more regulations, please! I do not believe this accident needs to prompt any change in low flying rules. As is so often the case, it is not new rules but compliance with them that is the issue, and there are enough examples here to demonstrate that was far from perfect.
God let's not advocate yet more regulations, please! I do not believe this accident needs to prompt any change in low flying rules. As is so often the case, it is not new rules but compliance with them that is the issue, and there are enough examples here to demonstrate that was far from perfect.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please not another knee jerk response with new rules. Since the existing ones aren't/can't be enforced it does no good to add extra ones.
Exactly what rules are you going to add anyway? You have to fly close to the ground shortly before you land.
Exactly what rules are you going to add anyway? You have to fly close to the ground shortly before you land.
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A review of low flying limits would have achieved nothing in this case.
I would question why the CAA can't notify a license holder when it is about to expire. A license costs enough, where does all the money go?
The fall out from this case is likely to be more on unlicensed illegal flying, not on low flying.
Some pilots will always take an opportunity to fly low and behave irresponsibly. Reviewing current legislation will not change that behaviour.
As for Mr Ferguson, I have some clippings under his by-line in an old scrapbook. He has been quoted in just about every North Sea accident since the year dot. A Google search found nothing, nor did a search of the P and J.
Certainly what he wrote about me and my colleague was hopelessly inaccurate, in fact down right mis-leading. Sadly mud sticks, some people remember what JF wrote rather than the AAIB report.
He even put a different spin on the AAIB and the report he wrote was utter b******s. I hope he reads this as I have long wanted to tell him to give up and retire before someone takes very serious action against him.
He is no more expert in aviation than I am in artificial insemination in wildebeest, and probably no better qualified.
I would question why the CAA can't notify a license holder when it is about to expire. A license costs enough, where does all the money go?
The fall out from this case is likely to be more on unlicensed illegal flying, not on low flying.
Some pilots will always take an opportunity to fly low and behave irresponsibly. Reviewing current legislation will not change that behaviour.
As for Mr Ferguson, I have some clippings under his by-line in an old scrapbook. He has been quoted in just about every North Sea accident since the year dot. A Google search found nothing, nor did a search of the P and J.
Certainly what he wrote about me and my colleague was hopelessly inaccurate, in fact down right mis-leading. Sadly mud sticks, some people remember what JF wrote rather than the AAIB report.
He even put a different spin on the AAIB and the report he wrote was utter b******s. I hope he reads this as I have long wanted to tell him to give up and retire before someone takes very serious action against him.
He is no more expert in aviation than I am in artificial insemination in wildebeest, and probably no better qualified.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not the rules that need changing, it's people's attitude to the existing rules that needs changing.
People with scant regard to the niceties of aviation regulations are hardly going to take notice of say, an increase of the minimum altitude in Rule 5, when wazzing about in sparsely populated areas.
I am actively trying to change people's attitudes precisely to avoid a blanket rule change that seems to follow certain kinds of incidents - the Harding case being a good example. These knee-jerk regulation changes are often brought about by people coming to grief trying to do something that they are not trained or equipped to accomplish safely, and result in perfectly proffessional and capable operators being penalised.
People with scant regard to the niceties of aviation regulations are hardly going to take notice of say, an increase of the minimum altitude in Rule 5, when wazzing about in sparsely populated areas.
I am actively trying to change people's attitudes precisely to avoid a blanket rule change that seems to follow certain kinds of incidents - the Harding case being a good example. These knee-jerk regulation changes are often brought about by people coming to grief trying to do something that they are not trained or equipped to accomplish safely, and result in perfectly proffessional and capable operators being penalised.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Gents I am sorry if suggesting that a change in rules may help to reduce the number of incidents we have but I really think it is important to grasp that in Colins case - no low flying rules were probably broken and yet massive - ultimatley proven - risks were taken.
Surely this must leave us wondering whether a tightening up on the rules - similar to thast which we in the CAT face every day via the Ops Manual would help!!
I accept that rules themselves will not prevent people from breaking them, but for the few that think - this is OK, I am not doing anything wrong, whizzing along the deck away from persons, property or animals - it SHOULD therefore be safe - might be spared a similar event.
I am not entirely sure that we should be afraid of sensible legislation.
It may be a "Nanny" culture but history repeatedily shows us that some people need nannying!!!
Please do not think I am innocent or holier than thou as I too have exploited to full gamit of the law "For some fun" but on reflection the risks I have taken have never really been justifiable.
I hope I have "got it out of my system" but I am pretty sure I had some luck in my bucket at the time.
Like I siad earlier, I have no idea where we would start, even if there was a will to do so. But to do nothing - surely that is the biggest crime of all - let us at least discuss the possibilities of tighter rules for this kind of flying.
Surely this must leave us wondering whether a tightening up on the rules - similar to thast which we in the CAT face every day via the Ops Manual would help!!
I accept that rules themselves will not prevent people from breaking them, but for the few that think - this is OK, I am not doing anything wrong, whizzing along the deck away from persons, property or animals - it SHOULD therefore be safe - might be spared a similar event.
I am not entirely sure that we should be afraid of sensible legislation.
It may be a "Nanny" culture but history repeatedily shows us that some people need nannying!!!
Please do not think I am innocent or holier than thou as I too have exploited to full gamit of the law "For some fun" but on reflection the risks I have taken have never really been justifiable.
I hope I have "got it out of my system" but I am pretty sure I had some luck in my bucket at the time.
Like I siad earlier, I have no idea where we would start, even if there was a will to do so. But to do nothing - surely that is the biggest crime of all - let us at least discuss the possibilities of tighter rules for this kind of flying.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D B
There have been quite a few accidents in the last twelve months or so - all of which were heartily discussed in these pages - where a helicopter has hit the ground in bad weather, at night, or both. Or as in this case through bad judgement - you could argue that bad judgement was a major factor in all of them.
The rules that are intended to prevent these events are already there.
If people choose to bend or ignore these existing rules, how will new or amended rules reduce, prevent or at least limit the number of future similar events?
Which rules do you suggest for change to make things better? Make aviation illegal?
I'm not having a go at you, I am intrigued to hear more.
There have been quite a few accidents in the last twelve months or so - all of which were heartily discussed in these pages - where a helicopter has hit the ground in bad weather, at night, or both. Or as in this case through bad judgement - you could argue that bad judgement was a major factor in all of them.
The rules that are intended to prevent these events are already there.
If people choose to bend or ignore these existing rules, how will new or amended rules reduce, prevent or at least limit the number of future similar events?
Which rules do you suggest for change to make things better? Make aviation illegal?
I'm not having a go at you, I am intrigued to hear more.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,582
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
Extra rules do nothing to prevent those who are rule breakers from breaking the rules and bending themselves, and sadly sometimes others, too. Examples should be made of the rule breakers, don't just make the rules more restrictive for everyone else too.
Leave things as they are! Flying helis for a living is made difficult enough as it is. At this rate we'll all be applying for written exemptions every time the cloudbase goes below 1,000 ft, FFS!
Leave things as they are! Flying helis for a living is made difficult enough as it is. At this rate we'll all be applying for written exemptions every time the cloudbase goes below 1,000 ft, FFS!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in a skip
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it was left to Double Bogey we'd have nothing but red tape. Rules that instructed us that we have to have a licence. And an LPC. And to keep a logbook. And to fly within the limits of the machine. Of course non of these rules would be able to be broken, would they?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Always on the back of the drag curve.
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about this for a scoop!
James Duncan Ferguson was born near Udny Station in Aberdeenshire in July, 1938. He was educated at Robert Gordon's School, Aberdeen and Gordonstoun School.
Service in the Clerical Branch of the Royal Navy followed, between 1957 and 1963, with a number of Fleet Air Arm related postings. Always keenly interested in military and civil aviation matters, he became a specialist writer on the Aberdeen oil-support operation from its ealriest days in the late 1960's. He is Scottish and European aviation correspondent for various British and US publications (Rotr & Wing) as well as a regular contributor to a wide range of specialist magazines. A crew member of the local life-boat and he also covers aviation and rescue matters for both press and radio. He is married to an art teacher, and has lived in Aberdeen since 1963.
Note: This may be a bit out of date - back of the "The Story of Aberdeen Airport 1934 - 1984"
I have met him a few times when I was a co-pilot in the S61N (1977) - a pleasant enough chap - a journalist nevertheless. He used to run a painting and decorating supplies shop in Rosemount Aberdeen - I think.
I rest my case !
UG
James Duncan Ferguson was born near Udny Station in Aberdeenshire in July, 1938. He was educated at Robert Gordon's School, Aberdeen and Gordonstoun School.
Service in the Clerical Branch of the Royal Navy followed, between 1957 and 1963, with a number of Fleet Air Arm related postings. Always keenly interested in military and civil aviation matters, he became a specialist writer on the Aberdeen oil-support operation from its ealriest days in the late 1960's. He is Scottish and European aviation correspondent for various British and US publications (Rotr & Wing) as well as a regular contributor to a wide range of specialist magazines. A crew member of the local life-boat and he also covers aviation and rescue matters for both press and radio. He is married to an art teacher, and has lived in Aberdeen since 1963.
Note: This may be a bit out of date - back of the "The Story of Aberdeen Airport 1934 - 1984"
I have met him a few times when I was a co-pilot in the S61N (1977) - a pleasant enough chap - a journalist nevertheless. He used to run a painting and decorating supplies shop in Rosemount Aberdeen - I think.
I rest my case !
UG
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Upland Goose;
There's expertise for you then!!
Please gents, no more legislation. The job is hard enough as it is. I can understand where DB is coming from, but the CAA have been known to use the excuse that one stupid accident should cause more restrictions in the CAT market. I know it wasn't private, but look at the reaction after Mathew Harding.
VH
There's expertise for you then!!
Please gents, no more legislation. The job is hard enough as it is. I can understand where DB is coming from, but the CAA have been known to use the excuse that one stupid accident should cause more restrictions in the CAT market. I know it wasn't private, but look at the reaction after Mathew Harding.
VH
Double Bogey
Unfortunately - having an expensive Ops manual published for you and operating as CAT under an AOC does not stop you crashing if you think you know better than the rules.
'Harding' was meant to have been CAT - and would have been fine if pilot had stuck to the rules.....ie, told passenger that flight was grounded due poor weather. Which goes the same for a PVT flight - if pilot had stuck to the rules.
Harding's PA paid for a vfr (let's call it ''daytime' for punter simplicity) machine afterall - or didn't his PA explain/understand the difference ...............
Unfortunately, scottish rally driver seemed to think he knew better - and being a mechanical wizz-kidd, probably thought he could cope with anything mechanical that was thrown at him.
We have guys working for us who used to 'spanner' for him and, despite being saddened by his loss (miracle driver etc), were not surprised that he had "stuffed it in" (their words not mine).
Most worshipped the ground he walked on - but as a driver - not a pilot!
They told me that he flew around as if he was in a rally car - take from that what you will - now can we simply dismiss this terrible accident as another case of a pilot under-estimating weather conditions and over-estimating their skill level?
A scenario that no level of rule implementation could realistically cater for?
'Harding' was meant to have been CAT - and would have been fine if pilot had stuck to the rules.....ie, told passenger that flight was grounded due poor weather. Which goes the same for a PVT flight - if pilot had stuck to the rules.
Harding's PA paid for a vfr (let's call it ''daytime' for punter simplicity) machine afterall - or didn't his PA explain/understand the difference ...............
Unfortunately, scottish rally driver seemed to think he knew better - and being a mechanical wizz-kidd, probably thought he could cope with anything mechanical that was thrown at him.
We have guys working for us who used to 'spanner' for him and, despite being saddened by his loss (miracle driver etc), were not surprised that he had "stuffed it in" (their words not mine).
Most worshipped the ground he walked on - but as a driver - not a pilot!
They told me that he flew around as if he was in a rally car - take from that what you will - now can we simply dismiss this terrible accident as another case of a pilot under-estimating weather conditions and over-estimating their skill level?
A scenario that no level of rule implementation could realistically cater for?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're picking on semantics. If the speed limit on a motorway is 70mph and I tell you that I drove at 80mph on the motorway, we all KNOW that I broke the limit without having to spell it out in words of one syllable.
As has been said elsewhere, whilst the low flying did not directly cause the accident, it was symptomatic of the attitude of the pilot on that day. His attitude is what caused the accident. The whole thing smacks of "having a bit of a wazz about" and the dangerous "hey, watch this" attitude that leads to so many accidents. The AAIB all but said this in the report - they have to be diplomatic and careful due to the legal context but their intent is obvious, I would say.
Just read the report, having known for some time the likely content/conclusions, and came accross this little nugget:
You couldn't write that stuff
The CAA Authorised Examiner who conducted the LPCs did not check the pilot’s licence on either occasion, and did not consider it his responsibility to do so
Warning thread creep...
Harding's PA paid for a vfr (let's call it ''daytime' for punter simplicity) machine afterall - or didn't his PA explain/understand the difference ...............
I don't expect she would have known, I can't imagine many PA's being up to speed on those sort of requirements, the boss probably just says 'get me a helicopter'. I know when getting charter requests for fixed wing and a very few rotary requests a few years back the negotiations are primarily about price/availability, rather than operational restrictions. That may have been due to me being getting quotes from within the industry and the expectation that I would know of potential restrictions.
Harding's PA paid for a vfr (let's call it ''daytime' for punter simplicity) machine afterall - or didn't his PA explain/understand the difference ...............
I don't expect she would have known, I can't imagine many PA's being up to speed on those sort of requirements, the boss probably just says 'get me a helicopter'. I know when getting charter requests for fixed wing and a very few rotary requests a few years back the negotiations are primarily about price/availability, rather than operational restrictions. That may have been due to me being getting quotes from within the industry and the expectation that I would know of potential restrictions.
I'm afraid that was exactly my point, the onus is up to the operator to explain both benefits and 'restrictions'......then again, Harding had travelled by chopper many times........
therein lies the problem - Gonads - you either have them or you don't
therein lies the problem - Gonads - you either have them or you don't
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line is that the psychology of pilots invariably leads to us trying to find both our limits,
Every choice involves one or more tradeoffs, even if these are unknown to the pilot.
Example:
Choice: fly low and fast
Tradeoff: margin of safety reduced, risk increased
Many pilots seem to have trouble with the concept of tradeoffs.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EN48 - I would stand by my original quote in full (below), rather than the abridged version you use.
Having been to, and studied for, numerous flight safety, CRM & CRMI symposia over the years, it is apparrent that all pilots have an underlying psychological makeup that includes an element of risk taking - it's a healthy part of keeping alive, if it's viewed & managed sensibly.
Professionally, finding both limits of machine and individual are not unhealthy pursuits - again, if viewed & managed sensibly, and one at a time! As I said in my post of 14th Feb
Colin McRae would not have been as successful, spectacular or as exciting in his driving career if he had not tested himself & his car to, and beyond, the limits of both. It's interesting that all those enthusiastic photographer-spectators at rally events are invariably looking for that ultimate photo that shows just how close to, or beyond, the driver is putting his car to the limits, while still managing to get it home in one piece. A spectacular crash provides similar excitement, newsworthyness and thrills - although the immediate concern is always for the welfare of the occupants . . . when they survive unscathed they will "have learnt from the experience".
Like a downhill ski racer, the one who wins is the one who maintains his time in the "zone of control" for the least time, i.e. spends most time just beyond the limits! Sadly, in this case, it was in the nature of the beast - just a huge shame that the particular mode of transport was so unforgiving & also had other innocent parties aboard.
The bottom line is that the psychology of pilots invariably leads to us trying to find both our limits, and that of our aircraft, at some stage.
Professionally, finding both limits of machine and individual are not unhealthy pursuits - again, if viewed & managed sensibly, and one at a time! As I said in my post of 14th Feb
- if you don't know where the line is, you'll never know when you're getting close to it.
Like a downhill ski racer, the one who wins is the one who maintains his time in the "zone of control" for the least time, i.e. spends most time just beyond the limits! Sadly, in this case, it was in the nature of the beast - just a huge shame that the particular mode of transport was so unforgiving & also had other innocent parties aboard.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,582
Received 441 Likes
on
233 Posts
Sadly McCrae isn't the only motorsport champion who has found to his cost that aviation and a risk taking character bias aren't always compatible. I can think of at least two others who paid the ultimate price in a similar way.