McRae Crash & Fatal Accident Inquiry
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point exactly Whirls. There are no rumours, just non technical damning explanations of the contents of the report, a lot of which would not be understood by those outwith this forum.
We have all read the report and despite a couple of 'could have been' deviations it's conclusions are pretty clear.
As for the comments about the invalid licence and type rating this information is out there in the media, only in a truncated and innaccurate form. Lets see what they make of illegal low flying and risk taking over the next few days.
Clearly I don't defend anyone flying with any of their paperwork out of date and as for the comment about the roll cage!!!!!
We have all read the report and despite a couple of 'could have been' deviations it's conclusions are pretty clear.
As for the comments about the invalid licence and type rating this information is out there in the media, only in a truncated and innaccurate form. Lets see what they make of illegal low flying and risk taking over the next few days.
Clearly I don't defend anyone flying with any of their paperwork out of date and as for the comment about the roll cage!!!!!
Last edited by Martin Barclay; 12th Feb 2009 at 15:00. Reason: Typo
There are no limits
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shrewsbury, England.
Age: 67
Posts: 505
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding roll cages..... Aicraft designed to meet or exceed the latest FAR 29 requirements do effectively have roll cages built in.
That does not mean that a new aircraft purchased today will actually be anywhere near that requirement but thats another story.
That does not mean that a new aircraft purchased today will actually be anywhere near that requirement but thats another story.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin
In some threads, I would agree with your sentiments, I don't here.
Although none of us are perfect, this report makes very sobering reading, and it should be the subject of open debate among pilots and, the general public. From a relatively low hours pplh pilots perspective, my opinion is that his decision to put himself and his passengers where he did was highly questionable.
That may be obvious to all of us, but in a chat forum, we have to type what we think to debate something.
For the record, if it ever happens to me I hope it would be fully dissected in here in the (probably vain) hope that the more fellow pilots talk about whatever questionable decision I might have made, the more likely it is that one single person might make a better decision one day. If I could have done better, I'd like others to learn from it.
The report is out - most people waited for that. I don't believe anyone is other than respectful of the fact that Colin was a talented and highly regarded business and family man, but the report leaves open his approach to detail and his attitude to risk. He would never have been as successful as he was without taking risks. But the evidence points at his own actions creating a sad legacy which does not mirror the majority of his life.
Would any other rotorheads reader expect us all to just read it, go away and not discuss our opinions amongst ourselves, and to hell with who else might read them and make of it what they will?
Lafite
In some threads, I would agree with your sentiments, I don't here.
Although none of us are perfect, this report makes very sobering reading, and it should be the subject of open debate among pilots and, the general public. From a relatively low hours pplh pilots perspective, my opinion is that his decision to put himself and his passengers where he did was highly questionable.
That may be obvious to all of us, but in a chat forum, we have to type what we think to debate something.
For the record, if it ever happens to me I hope it would be fully dissected in here in the (probably vain) hope that the more fellow pilots talk about whatever questionable decision I might have made, the more likely it is that one single person might make a better decision one day. If I could have done better, I'd like others to learn from it.
The report is out - most people waited for that. I don't believe anyone is other than respectful of the fact that Colin was a talented and highly regarded business and family man, but the report leaves open his approach to detail and his attitude to risk. He would never have been as successful as he was without taking risks. But the evidence points at his own actions creating a sad legacy which does not mirror the majority of his life.
Would any other rotorheads reader expect us all to just read it, go away and not discuss our opinions amongst ourselves, and to hell with who else might read them and make of it what they will?
Lafite
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a former international rally competitor, I am dumsruck by some of the supportive (of McRae) comments being made on motorsport forums, where the appalling insurance implications for McRae's surviving family seem to go unrecognised, despite the precedent of Graham Hill's family.
Graham Hill (and another cowboy pilot Colin Chapman, who survived his aerial conduct) were of an earlier era, not much removed from the one inhabited by Mike Hawthorn, who's fatal road accident we have just been remembering 50 years on.
McRae was from a modern era, had met Damon Hill on many occasions and should have been well aware of the financial implications of his actions and given more thought to the boring paperwork.
Graham Hill (and another cowboy pilot Colin Chapman, who survived his aerial conduct) were of an earlier era, not much removed from the one inhabited by Mike Hawthorn, who's fatal road accident we have just been remembering 50 years on.
McRae was from a modern era, had met Damon Hill on many occasions and should have been well aware of the financial implications of his actions and given more thought to the boring paperwork.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Lafite, I kind of stand corrected and if only the right people were reading this I would be all for an open debate. Unfortunately I have just had to sit and watch a TV journalist on BBC Reporting Scotland wave a copy of the AAIB report before producing a completely innaccurate analysis of the accident which did not reflect in any way the contents of the report.
I do want to talk about this but maybe at the Safety Evenings where there is less likelihood of press intrusion and sensationalism.
I do want to talk about this but maybe at the Safety Evenings where there is less likelihood of press intrusion and sensationalism.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have just watched the BBC Scotland News as well. The illustration of the accident was pathetic. They also have a habit of wheeling out a certain “Expert” Jim Ferguson who clearly does not have a clue what he's talking about. At the time of the accident his only comment was to say that Colin's helicopter used to be registered in Canada. What the hell had that to do with anything?
This forum is full of highly experienced pilots (I do not include myself ) who could quite easily give an informed analysis that the general public could understand. Instead of us censoring our comments we should maybe be encouraging the media to come on and help them to report aviation related news items accurately
This forum is full of highly experienced pilots (I do not include myself ) who could quite easily give an informed analysis that the general public could understand. Instead of us censoring our comments we should maybe be encouraging the media to come on and help them to report aviation related news items accurately
Thread Starter
Martin
Strangely enough because my telephone no. is on the helicopter safety website I was approached today for comment on this by the press.
I considered it for a liitle bit, merely to try and stop some of the sensationalism and misinterpretation of some key phrases of the report I've seen today in the media but in the end I delcined for a few reasons.
1. I figured that if they want to know what the report means they should ask the people who wrote it, not someone else for their interpretation.
2. I know nothing about single squirrels.
3. Other than reading the report what more do I know than anyone else.
And that was pretty much how the conversation went.
I also have an inbuilt mistrust of the media, after an earlier incident that happened to someone else that I've spoken about on PPRune before.
Was I right or wrong ? I moan when the media get it wrong and then do nothing when given the opportunity to perhaps put it right.
Behind the closed doors of a safety evening I think will be more appropriate.
Strangely enough because my telephone no. is on the helicopter safety website I was approached today for comment on this by the press.
I considered it for a liitle bit, merely to try and stop some of the sensationalism and misinterpretation of some key phrases of the report I've seen today in the media but in the end I delcined for a few reasons.
1. I figured that if they want to know what the report means they should ask the people who wrote it, not someone else for their interpretation.
2. I know nothing about single squirrels.
3. Other than reading the report what more do I know than anyone else.
And that was pretty much how the conversation went.
I also have an inbuilt mistrust of the media, after an earlier incident that happened to someone else that I've spoken about on PPRune before.
Was I right or wrong ? I moan when the media get it wrong and then do nothing when given the opportunity to perhaps put it right.
Behind the closed doors of a safety evening I think will be more appropriate.
Chief Bottle Washer
Originally Posted by Martin Barclay
I do want to talk about this but maybe at the Safety Evenings where there is less likelihood of press intrusion and sensationalism.
Should the press choose not to use it, fine. If they sensationalise or report inaccurately, we can only moan and whinge
If scurrilous or inaccurate comments are made, Mods will try to edit accordingly. But nothing is gained by keeping discussions private and secret, except deny informed opinion to those who would most benefit.I have also changed the thread title to reflect the general discussion that has now ensued.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
moggiee said: He was also caught on video engaging in risky flying involving illegal low flying.
Martin Barclay said: Lets see what they make of illegal low flying and risk taking over the next few days.
Guys, I was unaware that low flying in a valley is illegal.
Martin Barclay said: Lets see what they make of illegal low flying and risk taking over the next few days.
Guys, I was unaware that low flying in a valley is illegal.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Illegal or not, the pilot appears to have operated the aircraft in such a way as to exponentially increase the risk profile of the flight. This should not be acceptable when carrying passengers.
Those who say he was a good pilot, well, I dispute that. There is much more to flying than manipulating the controls. He was not a good pilot because he failed to recognise that his thrill seeking behaviour put innocent lives at risk. He was not a good pilot because he, confused or not, decided to fly a helicopter with an invalid licence.
I know what I would be doing if I was the family of the innocent deceased.
Those who say he was a good pilot, well, I dispute that. There is much more to flying than manipulating the controls. He was not a good pilot because he failed to recognise that his thrill seeking behaviour put innocent lives at risk. He was not a good pilot because he, confused or not, decided to fly a helicopter with an invalid licence.
I know what I would be doing if I was the family of the innocent deceased.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Forest of Caledon
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During the periods of flight captured on the video recording, the helicopter did not fly above 500 ft agl, and it was considerably lower for most of the time. Other aspects of the pilot’s handling of the aircraft were noteworthy: these included instances of very low flying, valley flying and other manoeuvres, as described below.
On the outbound flight the helicopter flew as low as 155 ft over open farmland, as indicated by the altimeter and, at one point, it flew over farm buildings at a height estimated from the video to be 275 ft. The pilot then rolled the helicopter rapidly into a brief but steeply banked right turn, before reversing the turn to the left, at which point a true indicated height of 335 ft was recorded.
When the helicopter departed from the farm on the accident fight, the pilot flew a ‘zoom’ climb, before descending into a narrow, steep-sided valley, next to the town of Larkhall. The valley is about 250 ft deep, and densely packed with trees along its length. This section of the recording showed the helicopter flying over trees at the valley’s edge at speed, with a separation from the trees estimated from the video footage at between 20 ft and 30 ft. It then pitched nose-down and descended into the valley, coming into similar proximity to trees on each side and below.
On the outbound flight the helicopter flew as low as 155 ft over open farmland, as indicated by the altimeter and, at one point, it flew over farm buildings at a height estimated from the video to be 275 ft. The pilot then rolled the helicopter rapidly into a brief but steeply banked right turn, before reversing the turn to the left, at which point a true indicated height of 335 ft was recorded.
When the helicopter departed from the farm on the accident fight, the pilot flew a ‘zoom’ climb, before descending into a narrow, steep-sided valley, next to the town of Larkhall. The valley is about 250 ft deep, and densely packed with trees along its length. This section of the recording showed the helicopter flying over trees at the valley’s edge at speed, with a separation from the trees estimated from the video footage at between 20 ft and 30 ft. It then pitched nose-down and descended into the valley, coming into similar proximity to trees on each side and below.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortly after an accident happens, some people here are always on the fence with statements like: "let's wait for the official report and don't mention a word in regards of the probable cause (e.g. speculate)" and the like. Now the report has finally been issued and we STILL aren't supposed to discuss it!?! 
Give me a f*** break!
Like a lot of people have stated before: the media WILL report, no matter what we say. Every industry has its fair share of morons and maybe, just maybe, the media will see that we are not just accepting the fact that one of us did not abide by the rules and killed innocent people. They might recognize that we actually speak up and say that we as professionals condemn any kind of behavior like this!!!
(rant over)
Who says you aren't supposed to discuss it? My previous post was intended to encourage sensible discussion, bearing in mind that the press will watch and take note of most of what is said here.
Senior Pilot
Edit:
Senior Pilot:
I'm sorry, my statement was targeted at some posters, not at you or pprune in general. I feel its important to point out that the media is reading this, but to say we should keep quiet is ridiculous - not only would it probably fuel the fire, it is pretty impossible to gag everyone here anyway (I know that is not your intention).
Give me a f*** break!
Like a lot of people have stated before: the media WILL report, no matter what we say. Every industry has its fair share of morons and maybe, just maybe, the media will see that we are not just accepting the fact that one of us did not abide by the rules and killed innocent people. They might recognize that we actually speak up and say that we as professionals condemn any kind of behavior like this!!!
(rant over)
Who says you aren't supposed to discuss it? My previous post was intended to encourage sensible discussion, bearing in mind that the press will watch and take note of most of what is said here.
Senior Pilot
Edit:
Senior Pilot:
I'm sorry, my statement was targeted at some posters, not at you or pprune in general. I feel its important to point out that the media is reading this, but to say we should keep quiet is ridiculous - not only would it probably fuel the fire, it is pretty impossible to gag everyone here anyway (I know that is not your intention).
Last edited by Phil77; 13th Feb 2009 at 14:00. Reason: response to Senior Pilot
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What could possibly go wrong?
Cheers
Whirls
Being downwind is pretty irrelevant at such high speed and low level if you don't see the tree.
He simply didn't leave any margin for error in his flying and let playing to the audience override any sense of self-preservation.
He simply didn't leave any margin for error in his flying and let playing to the audience override any sense of self-preservation.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[email protected]
I suspect if you actually read the report, you might find:
A Downwind could well have been relevant
B They probably did see the tree well before they hit
In fact, both elements are specifically discussed
NoD
Being downwind is pretty irrelevant at such high speed and low level if you don't see the tree
A Downwind could well have been relevant
B They probably did see the tree well before they hit
In fact, both elements are specifically discussed
NoD
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
I think reading the report and hearing the witness reports, video etc, I reach only one conclusion, thank god is was not me.
I have done exactly the same type of flying both authoprised (in a olive green suit) and unauthorised (in small twin engine turbines).
Once I descended into a wooded valley on a HEMs shout (way too low but "self" justified as I was on a "shout") ... turning gently and BAM...wires right in front of me. Hot wet feeling in the seat of the pants and my superior skills saved my ass from my inferior decision making.
A freind said recently that when a pilot is born he arrives with 2 buckets, one is full of luck and the other is empty and marked "Experience". The trick he said, is to fill up the bucket of experience before you empty the bucket of luck.
Let us not forget the sheer thrill and exhileration of pure flying just for the bloody fun of it. Nothing beats a low fast run across open ground in good light, especially when getting paid for it as we were in the mil.
Flying attracts people who seems pre-disposed to push the envelope to the limit. Thrill seekers and risk takers, where would we be without their contribution in the past.
I think Colins accident says only one thing to all of us - IT CAN, AND WILL AT TIMES, GO HORRIBLY WRONG.
It is very easy to critise Colin for the "risk taking" element of the accident but I will not do so, because I have done the same thing only the outcome being very different.
In conclusion, flying below 500 feet is not illegal provided the reqs of Rule 5 & 6 are met. But is it sensible. Probably not. In CAT OPS the Operator is required to make statements about minimum cruising altitudes to try and prevent this kind of (unauthorised experience enhancement).
Some how we have to create rules that take away the temptation of lesser exeprienced pilots from pushing the envelope too far.
The true lesson in Colins accident is to be seklf critical of all (fun flying) decisions that we make. Play the vidoe tape forwrd to the future and ask, how will this be interpreted if it goes wrong.
Today I try to take as few risks as possible in my flying as I have experienced enough thrills for my one life and yes most were self generated. I would like to say that younger less experienced pilot should heed the words of the wise and the lesson from Colin would be "Never to try it yourself" but this is unrealistic, just as it was when I started out and the old and bold handed down their wisdom.
In the end I think the "2 Buckets" analogy of my friend probably applies to all of us. That and remembering that a suprior pilot uses his superior knowledge to prevent him having to use his superior skills.
I have done exactly the same type of flying both authoprised (in a olive green suit) and unauthorised (in small twin engine turbines).
Once I descended into a wooded valley on a HEMs shout (way too low but "self" justified as I was on a "shout") ... turning gently and BAM...wires right in front of me. Hot wet feeling in the seat of the pants and my superior skills saved my ass from my inferior decision making.
A freind said recently that when a pilot is born he arrives with 2 buckets, one is full of luck and the other is empty and marked "Experience". The trick he said, is to fill up the bucket of experience before you empty the bucket of luck.
Let us not forget the sheer thrill and exhileration of pure flying just for the bloody fun of it. Nothing beats a low fast run across open ground in good light, especially when getting paid for it as we were in the mil.
Flying attracts people who seems pre-disposed to push the envelope to the limit. Thrill seekers and risk takers, where would we be without their contribution in the past.
I think Colins accident says only one thing to all of us - IT CAN, AND WILL AT TIMES, GO HORRIBLY WRONG.
It is very easy to critise Colin for the "risk taking" element of the accident but I will not do so, because I have done the same thing only the outcome being very different.
In conclusion, flying below 500 feet is not illegal provided the reqs of Rule 5 & 6 are met. But is it sensible. Probably not. In CAT OPS the Operator is required to make statements about minimum cruising altitudes to try and prevent this kind of (unauthorised experience enhancement).
Some how we have to create rules that take away the temptation of lesser exeprienced pilots from pushing the envelope too far.
The true lesson in Colins accident is to be seklf critical of all (fun flying) decisions that we make. Play the vidoe tape forwrd to the future and ask, how will this be interpreted if it goes wrong.
Today I try to take as few risks as possible in my flying as I have experienced enough thrills for my one life and yes most were self generated. I would like to say that younger less experienced pilot should heed the words of the wise and the lesson from Colin would be "Never to try it yourself" but this is unrealistic, just as it was when I started out and the old and bold handed down their wisdom.
In the end I think the "2 Buckets" analogy of my friend probably applies to all of us. That and remembering that a suprior pilot uses his superior knowledge to prevent him having to use his superior skills.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Bogey - I enjoyed reading your post, but what happened in the incident does not reflect on a "professional" Pilot and I don't mean professional in job/career. You only have to read the sections in the report regarding FPC's, licencing and log book keeping to start to form a picture and possible attitude. Was this then taken to the air? I think his bucket of luck was empty, well before he ever left the ground. There are good, hostorical reasons as we all know as to why regulations are in place, its becasue someone, somewhere, at some time came a cropper. Thats why we are told to observe this rule or take this test or keep that record, however mundane. And yes, we have all done the low flying bit, but not with family and friends in the cab as closer to the solid bit we land on, the more likely it is to end badly if it does go wrong, even if it is caused by events out of our control, which appears not to be the case in this incident.
Lets all hope that this tragic incident and a very good post from Double Bogey make someone go "no, I am not going to do X, because it could lead to Y if it goes wrong, even if it would be fun to try".
Lets all hope that this tragic incident and a very good post from Double Bogey make someone go "no, I am not going to do X, because it could lead to Y if it goes wrong, even if it would be fun to try".
Last edited by 20Minuter; 13th Feb 2009 at 09:25.