McRae Crash & Fatal Accident Inquiry
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Boundary Layer
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst it makes sense for Examiners to check licence validity, the requirement to do so was only added to the Examiners' Handbook after this accident. At the time of the LPC in question, I believe that no such requirement existed.
Second, the inclusion of expiry dates in Private licences was a sneaky money making twist introduced during the JAA debacle. Previously PPL's had been valid for life and the design of the licence using a single two sided folded sheet meant that the expiry date was often hidden inadvertently. Many pilots presenting themselves to me for an LPC during the transition period had never even noticed that their licence had suddenly grown an expiry date. There are still a number of UK PPL's out there with no expiry date.
Third, even when a pilot has passed his licence expiry date, he needs to complete an LPC in order to revalidate his licence. Whilst examiner action required is different, there is nothing to prevent the LPC from being completed.
The real question here is one of Pilot responsibility. As the Commander of an aircraft, the Pilot in Command is soley responsible for ensuring that they are legal to fly every time they take to the air. Pilots should not even be presenting themselves for an LPC unless they are fully prepared - which should include pointing out to an examiner that their licence has expired. Trying to deflect and transfer this responsibility to instructors or examiners by lawyers in post accident court cases is becoming an increasingly worrying trend.
Several instructors and examiners have recently found themselves up in court on recently trying to justify how they conducted a particular flight, often several years before. The real responsibility generally resides with the PIC at the time of the accident.
The whole nanny state mentality that says "if I cock up, it must be somebody else's fault" is creeping into our society to an alarming degree. Flying can be a potentially hazardous pursuit - like many other activities that involve a degree of risk - it is that risk which makes it fun. If you don't want to accept the risks - then don't do it! And if it goes wrong on you, unlucky but more often than not, there is a substantial element of contributory negligence/poor judgement on the part of the PIC.
Most examiners and instructors I know take their responsibilities very seriously but they cannot cover every single combination of circumstances that might arise in a pilot's future flying. Once a pilot takes on the command of an aircraft, it is his or her responsibility and no-one else's.
I do not know the actual detail of this accident, only what has been reported. It would appear that there was a degree of poor airmanship and decision making. Whether or not an examiner had checked the expiry date on a licence several months before made no difference to the outcome.
It is tragic when there is any loss of life, particularly when it may have been avoidable. Somehow trying to make it the fault of an instructor or examiner is cynical, inequitable and will lead to people leaving the profession as the risks are simply not worth the reward.
Second, the inclusion of expiry dates in Private licences was a sneaky money making twist introduced during the JAA debacle. Previously PPL's had been valid for life and the design of the licence using a single two sided folded sheet meant that the expiry date was often hidden inadvertently. Many pilots presenting themselves to me for an LPC during the transition period had never even noticed that their licence had suddenly grown an expiry date. There are still a number of UK PPL's out there with no expiry date.
Third, even when a pilot has passed his licence expiry date, he needs to complete an LPC in order to revalidate his licence. Whilst examiner action required is different, there is nothing to prevent the LPC from being completed.
The real question here is one of Pilot responsibility. As the Commander of an aircraft, the Pilot in Command is soley responsible for ensuring that they are legal to fly every time they take to the air. Pilots should not even be presenting themselves for an LPC unless they are fully prepared - which should include pointing out to an examiner that their licence has expired. Trying to deflect and transfer this responsibility to instructors or examiners by lawyers in post accident court cases is becoming an increasingly worrying trend.
Several instructors and examiners have recently found themselves up in court on recently trying to justify how they conducted a particular flight, often several years before. The real responsibility generally resides with the PIC at the time of the accident.
The whole nanny state mentality that says "if I cock up, it must be somebody else's fault" is creeping into our society to an alarming degree. Flying can be a potentially hazardous pursuit - like many other activities that involve a degree of risk - it is that risk which makes it fun. If you don't want to accept the risks - then don't do it! And if it goes wrong on you, unlucky but more often than not, there is a substantial element of contributory negligence/poor judgement on the part of the PIC.
Most examiners and instructors I know take their responsibilities very seriously but they cannot cover every single combination of circumstances that might arise in a pilot's future flying. Once a pilot takes on the command of an aircraft, it is his or her responsibility and no-one else's.
I do not know the actual detail of this accident, only what has been reported. It would appear that there was a degree of poor airmanship and decision making. Whether or not an examiner had checked the expiry date on a licence several months before made no difference to the outcome.
It is tragic when there is any loss of life, particularly when it may have been avoidable. Somehow trying to make it the fault of an instructor or examiner is cynical, inequitable and will lead to people leaving the profession as the risks are simply not worth the reward.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Englandshire
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crown blames McRae for fatal helicopter crash
Sad end to a long inquiry. Well done to the AAIB and all those involved in putting this to rest. A thought for those touched by this tragic event and loss of life.
Crown blames McRae for fatal helicopter crash - Herald Scotland | News | Home News
Crown blames McRae for fatal helicopter crash - Herald Scotland | News | Home News
A SHERIFF has been urged to rule that former world rally champion Colin McRae was at fault for the helicopter crash which killed him and three others.
Official documents submitted by the Crown Office claim the most likely cause of the accident was the way Mr McRae piloted the aircraft.
They argue his decision to fly at a “low level” and at high speed in a wooded valley was a “significant contributory factor” in the crash and that it could have been avoided had he not done so.
Official documents submitted by the Crown Office claim the most likely cause of the accident was the way Mr McRae piloted the aircraft.
They argue his decision to fly at a “low level” and at high speed in a wooded valley was a “significant contributory factor” in the crash and that it could have been avoided had he not done so.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News - Colin McRae blamed for fatal helicopter crash
what do you think about this? good idea or not?
He said his family had wanted the inquiry to recommend that private aircrafts should be fitted with a flight data recorder.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: In a Hangar
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that would involve a huge cost to what benefit. Do you think having a black box fitted would've stopped him from flying without a valid licence or flying in a manner more akin to flinging around a rally car than piloting an aircraft?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far better to fly within the limitations of the aircraft, within the legal constraints applicable to all aircraft (minimum clearance from any person, vessel, wehicle or structure) and within the legal constraints applicable to the indivdual pilot (licenses, etc).
I would much rather not have the death and destruction than have a record of it.
Anyway - how much weight, what would you record, etc on an R22??? Or on a hang-glider???
I would much rather not have the death and destruction than have a record of it.
Anyway - how much weight, what would you record, etc on an R22??? Or on a hang-glider???
Ambition versus talent.
Sadly, the characteristic that connects most, but not all, the CFIT accidents that figure on this forum whether flown by professionals or amateurs is: their ambitions(read - ego) outweighs their talents(read - abilities).
Jimmy McRrae's assertion that Colin's rally driving record and expertise should provide some evidence to support the position that he was not in error is understandable from a grieving father, but, utterly flawed.
On the contrary - what it displays is that Colin was a person who was supremely confident in his own abilities and prepared (compelled?) to push hard in order to achieve goals. On how many occasions in racing did this lead to him, and of course all other top level drivers, having accidents? That's a perfectly acceptable part of rallying and one which is well mitigated.
Aviation, however, is not so forgiving as, i fear, he found out to his cost.
OH
On the contrary - what it displays is that Colin was a person who was supremely confident in his own abilities and prepared (compelled?) to push hard in order to achieve goals. On how many occasions in racing did this lead to him, and of course all other top level drivers, having accidents? That's a perfectly acceptable part of rallying and one which is well mitigated.
Aviation, however, is not so forgiving as, i fear, he found out to his cost.
OH
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that would involve a huge cost to what benefit. Do you think having a black box fitted would've stopped him from flying without a valid licence or flying in a manner more akin to flinging around a rally car than piloting an aircraft?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Away from home Rat
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colin McRae didn't get his nickname of Colin "McCrash" for nothing. His all out style of driving drove his co-driver Nicky Grist to despair. Many times, Colin would disregard Nicky's instructions from the pace notes and attack a corner faster or further off the line that the car cared to travel. That is why he only won one WRC and not the several he should have won. Unfortunately it seems he took this attitude into his flying too.. No roll cage to save him this time though.. What a waste.
Beady Eye
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colin McCrae blamed for crash
BBC News - Colin McRae blamed for fatal helicopter crash
Sheriff Nikola Stewart, who heard the inquiry over 16 days at Lanark Sheriff Court, concluded that the deaths could have been avoided if Mr McRae had not engaged in low-level flying "when it was unnecessary and unsafe to do so".
In her written determination, the sheriff concluded: "The deaths and the accident resulting in the deaths might have been avoided had Mr McRae not flown his helicopter into the Mouse Valley.
"Such a precaution would have been entirely reasonable. There was no necessity to enter the Mouse Valley. There were no operational or logistical reasons to enter the Mouse Valley.
"Mr McRae chose to fly the helicopter into the valley. For a private pilot such as Mr McRae, lacking the necessary training, experience or requirement to do so, embarking upon such demanding, low-level flying in such difficult terrain, was imprudent, unreasonable and contrary to the principles of good airmanship."
The aircraft was in powered flight at the time of the crash and Mr McRae had attempted to recover from that unknown incident.
These attempts, the sheriff said, were unsuccessful because of the position and speed of the helicopter within Mouse Valley and the ensuing restrictions on opportunities to land the helicopter or fly it to safety.
Such options would have been available to him had he "adhered to rules of good airmanship and desisted from flying in the valley at low height and high speed", she said.
The sheriff stated: "It would have been a reasonable precaution to refrain from flying helicopter G-CBHL into Mouse Valley wherein the pilot engaged in low-level flying when it was unnecessary and unsafe for him to do so, and whilst carrying passengers on board."
One of the crash victims, Mr Duncan, filmed much of the outbound and return flights on his personal camcorder and some of the footage was recovered and included in the inquiry hearings.
Sheriff Stewart said the footage indicated that the helicopter was being flown "at unnecessarily low heights".
"He (Mr McRae) undertook significant manoeuvring at low level and the helicopter seems to have encountered significant g-loading as a result, to the evident enjoyment of his passengers.
"The episodes of extremely low-level flying and the excessive manoeuvre parameters, particularly the descent into the valley by Larkhall, all as captured on the video recording, are indicative of an aircraft being flown imprudently, without due regard to the principles of good airmanship and in such a way that normal safety margins would be reduced."
Sheriff Stewart found that Mr McRae did not hold a valid flying licence or a valid "rating" for the Eurocopter Squirrel helicopter. "He was, accordingly, in breach of article 26 of the Air Navigation Order 2005 when he flew his helicopter on September 15 2007 and should not have flown that machine at that time," she said.
Pretty damning.
Sheriff Nikola Stewart, who heard the inquiry over 16 days at Lanark Sheriff Court, concluded that the deaths could have been avoided if Mr McRae had not engaged in low-level flying "when it was unnecessary and unsafe to do so".
In her written determination, the sheriff concluded: "The deaths and the accident resulting in the deaths might have been avoided had Mr McRae not flown his helicopter into the Mouse Valley.
"Such a precaution would have been entirely reasonable. There was no necessity to enter the Mouse Valley. There were no operational or logistical reasons to enter the Mouse Valley.
"Mr McRae chose to fly the helicopter into the valley. For a private pilot such as Mr McRae, lacking the necessary training, experience or requirement to do so, embarking upon such demanding, low-level flying in such difficult terrain, was imprudent, unreasonable and contrary to the principles of good airmanship."
The aircraft was in powered flight at the time of the crash and Mr McRae had attempted to recover from that unknown incident.
These attempts, the sheriff said, were unsuccessful because of the position and speed of the helicopter within Mouse Valley and the ensuing restrictions on opportunities to land the helicopter or fly it to safety.
Such options would have been available to him had he "adhered to rules of good airmanship and desisted from flying in the valley at low height and high speed", she said.
The sheriff stated: "It would have been a reasonable precaution to refrain from flying helicopter G-CBHL into Mouse Valley wherein the pilot engaged in low-level flying when it was unnecessary and unsafe for him to do so, and whilst carrying passengers on board."
One of the crash victims, Mr Duncan, filmed much of the outbound and return flights on his personal camcorder and some of the footage was recovered and included in the inquiry hearings.
Sheriff Stewart said the footage indicated that the helicopter was being flown "at unnecessarily low heights".
"He (Mr McRae) undertook significant manoeuvring at low level and the helicopter seems to have encountered significant g-loading as a result, to the evident enjoyment of his passengers.
"The episodes of extremely low-level flying and the excessive manoeuvre parameters, particularly the descent into the valley by Larkhall, all as captured on the video recording, are indicative of an aircraft being flown imprudently, without due regard to the principles of good airmanship and in such a way that normal safety margins would be reduced."
Sheriff Stewart found that Mr McRae did not hold a valid flying licence or a valid "rating" for the Eurocopter Squirrel helicopter. "He was, accordingly, in breach of article 26 of the Air Navigation Order 2005 when he flew his helicopter on September 15 2007 and should not have flown that machine at that time," she said.
Pretty damning.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I spoke to Colin on a regular basis through my job ( he rarely flew any distance without speaking to ATC...how many of you hover jocky's can say that? )......I once asked a friend of his, a fellow motor racer on 2 wheels not 4 and a fellow helicopter pilot what Colin was like in the Air as to me he always seemed crazy in a car.....the response was that the opposite was the case.....never never took a risk in the air and was meticulous in his planning.....to this day I honestly believed that .
One thing for sure we will never know the real facts that caused the accident but for sure Scotland lost a real legend in that accident.
My thoughts and best wishes go out to the families involved and I sincerely hope that finally people will respect and appreciate the joy that Colin brought to so many that followed his career.
One thing for sure we will never know the real facts that caused the accident but for sure Scotland lost a real legend in that accident.
My thoughts and best wishes go out to the families involved and I sincerely hope that finally people will respect and appreciate the joy that Colin brought to so many that followed his career.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the BBC site:
The McRae family's solicitor, Peter Watson, added: "Although Colin's licence was out-of-date, this played no contributory factor whatsoever to the accident."
I find this statement quite interesting...currency, disregard for authority etc
The McRae family's solicitor, Peter Watson, added: "Although Colin's licence was out-of-date, this played no contributory factor whatsoever to the accident."
I find this statement quite interesting...currency, disregard for authority etc
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: GLASGOW
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a very sad case, two small children died. I was due to fly that day. I cancelled the trip due to weather. I remember the day well, and chose not to get airborne. When I heard of the accident, my first thought was who the hell would be flying today. Very low overcast, strong wind, driving rain.
As the 'facts' emerged', it became all the clearer, and the facts of the case are damming. It does not help that he was a good guy, a 'personality', there for the grace of god etc.
That helicopter should not have flown in the circumstances it did, and not with passengers. A salutary lesson for all I think.
Just very sad.
As the 'facts' emerged', it became all the clearer, and the facts of the case are damming. It does not help that he was a good guy, a 'personality', there for the grace of god etc.
That helicopter should not have flown in the circumstances it did, and not with passengers. A salutary lesson for all I think.
Just very sad.
I am reminded of Graham Hill, another professional driver who transferred the cavalier attitude of the racetrack to the air, with tragic results for those who were flying with him. I seem to recall Hill's licence was not current either and I wonder what the MacRaes' solicitor's qualifications are for making the remarks he did.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: south east UK
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was once told that the most dangerous words a pilot can say are "hey, watch this" - That would seem to be relevent in this situation.
The lack of licence would seem to be very relevent - as said above it starts to add to the picture of a cavalier attitude to the rules.
Sad and tragic accident - but very avoidable and not an accident at all. The liability claims could wipe out a considerable proportion of his estate I expect.
The lack of licence would seem to be very relevent - as said above it starts to add to the picture of a cavalier attitude to the rules.
Sad and tragic accident - but very avoidable and not an accident at all. The liability claims could wipe out a considerable proportion of his estate I expect.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before I was involved in aviation, and in the early days that I was (as, at that time, a flying instructor) I encountered several members of the motor racing fraternity. Being a petrolhead myself this was both a source of (obvious) joy , whilst being simultaneously disquieting.
In general these guys all had truly excellent hand/eye coordination & the ability (as you imagine) to think ahead of the vehicle. Sadly what most ( & I assuredly do not say all) lacked, was the discipline needed to be a little conservative both in aircraft handling, & in operational decisions, that form a prerequisite to attaining old age in aviation, be it professional or recreational.
Sure Colin was probably a great "poler", cannot imagine he wasn't, but he failed IMHO to see the difference between giving some guys a quick trip down the drive in a Squirrel vs a Subaru (although in reality the differences are not so marked & indeed the latter could also have ended in tears.)
As we all know, too easy in a situation like this to go "Hero to Zero" in 1/10 of a second. Sad, but not entirely surprising.
Good bloke that didn't realise his, or the machines , limitations. Much as per his early rally career. Sad he chose to have such a "Hoon" with two young kids for company.
In general these guys all had truly excellent hand/eye coordination & the ability (as you imagine) to think ahead of the vehicle. Sadly what most ( & I assuredly do not say all) lacked, was the discipline needed to be a little conservative both in aircraft handling, & in operational decisions, that form a prerequisite to attaining old age in aviation, be it professional or recreational.
Sure Colin was probably a great "poler", cannot imagine he wasn't, but he failed IMHO to see the difference between giving some guys a quick trip down the drive in a Squirrel vs a Subaru (although in reality the differences are not so marked & indeed the latter could also have ended in tears.)
As we all know, too easy in a situation like this to go "Hero to Zero" in 1/10 of a second. Sad, but not entirely surprising.
Good bloke that didn't realise his, or the machines , limitations. Much as per his early rally career. Sad he chose to have such a "Hoon" with two young kids for company.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lack of licence would seem to be very relevent - as said above it starts to add to the picture of a cavalier attitude to the rules
Given the lack of rating validity, and previous medical lapses (although not here) I would agree with your conclusion.