Crash near Harrogate, UK: January 2008
Well, it says he received a conditional discharge, which means this:
In England and Wales, a conditional discharge is a sentence vitiating the finding of guilt in which the offender receives no punishment provided that, in a period set by the court (not more than three years), no further offence is committed. If an offence is committed in that time, then the offender may also be re-sentenced for the offence for which a conditional discharge was given. Pursuant section 14 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 [4] and R v Patel [2006] EWCA Crim 2689[5] the conditional discharge does not constitute a conviction unless the individual breaches the conditional discharge and is re-sentenced
You can't beleive all you read in the press (or pprune), but at least they got the conditional discharge bit right. I won't give further details as the prosecution is still ongoing for the instructor. JJ
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Age: 56
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All
It's amazing how the press and others are able to use phraseology that completely distorts the facts. The CAA have prosecuted this case only because of the (very regrettable) accident and subsequent deaths.
I'm reasonably privy to the circumstances and this accident would almost certainly have occurred - particularly because the aircraft was a gazelle, was being flown by a very low time PPL (H) and in conditions outside the capability of many experienced helicopter pilots. The examiners, totally un-related involvement, were not a factor in the incident.
The 'offence' committed by the examiner was so slight as to be insignificant. In fact the CAA have subsequently (not connected with this incident) changed their rules and had the examiner concerned done the same thing now, he would not have not committed any 'offence'.
It was a witch hunt from the start. and the fact that a conditional discharge was given, proves that. It's a pure technicality that an absolute discharge wasn't given instead of the conditional one.
Hopefully now, the examiner can put this situation behind him and carry on teaching and examining. He's one of the best I know, hugely talented and anyone that has flown with him or been examined by him will have benefited in many aspects not least of which is flight safety.
And, on a final note, he's also responsible for the fact that two very good friends of mine are still walking and talking today after the helicopter they were flying in suffered a serious mechanical failure 30 seconds before entering the London Helicopter lanes not so long ago. If you're in the sh*t in a helicopter, other than g-d sat next to you, this is the guy you want sat beside you.
Yes, I'm his mate - and proud to be - but I'm a straight talker, I'm sensible and objective and the prosecution was a load of bo**ocks from the start.
Joel
It's amazing how the press and others are able to use phraseology that completely distorts the facts. The CAA have prosecuted this case only because of the (very regrettable) accident and subsequent deaths.
I'm reasonably privy to the circumstances and this accident would almost certainly have occurred - particularly because the aircraft was a gazelle, was being flown by a very low time PPL (H) and in conditions outside the capability of many experienced helicopter pilots. The examiners, totally un-related involvement, were not a factor in the incident.
The 'offence' committed by the examiner was so slight as to be insignificant. In fact the CAA have subsequently (not connected with this incident) changed their rules and had the examiner concerned done the same thing now, he would not have not committed any 'offence'.
It was a witch hunt from the start. and the fact that a conditional discharge was given, proves that. It's a pure technicality that an absolute discharge wasn't given instead of the conditional one.
Hopefully now, the examiner can put this situation behind him and carry on teaching and examining. He's one of the best I know, hugely talented and anyone that has flown with him or been examined by him will have benefited in many aspects not least of which is flight safety.
And, on a final note, he's also responsible for the fact that two very good friends of mine are still walking and talking today after the helicopter they were flying in suffered a serious mechanical failure 30 seconds before entering the London Helicopter lanes not so long ago. If you're in the sh*t in a helicopter, other than g-d sat next to you, this is the guy you want sat beside you.
Yes, I'm his mate - and proud to be - but I'm a straight talker, I'm sensible and objective and the prosecution was a load of bo**ocks from the start.
Joel
totally correct in all you say . They always seem to go for the good guys dont they !!!!
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without knowing any details or the people concerned, I still find it very scary that an instructor and examiner can be prosecuted for events caused by an ex-student's own choices, long after they were involved. I don't think I want to do any more instructing if this sort of thing can happen - and I bet I'm not the only one who feels that way!
Whirly,
I also know little about the situation (other than posting the link to the BBC story which, incidentally, also appeared in the Daily Telegraph). But were the gentlemen in question charged due to events on the fateful day or was it maybe due to inconsistencies or irregularities with paperwork or other documentation that only came to light because of the AAIB investigation? That's certainly the impression that I get from reading the media reports.
I also know little about the situation (other than posting the link to the BBC story which, incidentally, also appeared in the Daily Telegraph). But were the gentlemen in question charged due to events on the fateful day or was it maybe due to inconsistencies or irregularities with paperwork or other documentation that only came to light because of the AAIB investigation? That's certainly the impression that I get from reading the media reports.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: shropshire
Age: 73
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helirobin
all,
I totally agree with JTobias, I know the examiner and have flown with him on several occassions; I cannot imagine anybody being able to impart safe flying within ones own capabilities better than this gentleman; he is a total professional and it is a priveledge to know him.
I totally agree with JTobias, I know the examiner and have flown with him on several occassions; I cannot imagine anybody being able to impart safe flying within ones own capabilities better than this gentleman; he is a total professional and it is a priveledge to know him.
The only part of this fiasco that i find extraordinary is that you all seem to be surprised !!! After many years of thieving from operators ( and very wisely staying away from the small one man bands who are far too wily for them 
) and working hard to reduce GA in this country ....the CAA are operating exactly how one would expect them to !! Now if they did something that actually made flying safer and, god forbid , cheaper ....then you can all be surprised with good cause . Until then accept the fact that you are working in a dying industry with the CAA sitting there in judgement often with little or no actual experience . They will not be satisfied until the regulate the whole industry into a coffin !! Very soon all the FAA licenced pilots will have to have ratings for every type in spite of having flown happily and safely on their FAA tickets . More jobs for the boys followed by less pilots bothering . This is a story that will not have a happy ending 
) and working hard to reduce GA in this country ....the CAA are operating exactly how one would expect them to !! Now if they did something that actually made flying safer and, god forbid , cheaper ....then you can all be surprised with good cause . Until then accept the fact that you are working in a dying industry with the CAA sitting there in judgement often with little or no actual experience . They will not be satisfied until the regulate the whole industry into a coffin !! Very soon all the FAA licenced pilots will have to have ratings for every type in spite of having flown happily and safely on their FAA tickets . More jobs for the boys followed by less pilots bothering . This is a story that will not have a happy ending
Technical Beaurocratic nit picking with regards to where instructional flights took off and landed etc They used radar records I believe . I don't think instructors are paid enough now ......
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Instructors are never paid enough, but that's not really the point.
Is it not pretty important for logbooks to be kept accurate and up to date with regards to training, as well as student files to be kept so that a sensible and ongoing assessment of ability and training position can be made?
While it may not have altered the outcome of the flight ultimately, correctly kept logs and student documentation would have removed any concerns over the nature of the training and any inadequacies highlighted therein.
It's not just arse covering, it's good practice to be sure that the student is as well prepared and ready for the real world as is possible. And as highlighted before, an examiner can only pass or fail based on the standard of flight demonstrated on the day, and advise a candidate on the attitudes shown throughout...
Is it not pretty important for logbooks to be kept accurate and up to date with regards to training, as well as student files to be kept so that a sensible and ongoing assessment of ability and training position can be made?
While it may not have altered the outcome of the flight ultimately, correctly kept logs and student documentation would have removed any concerns over the nature of the training and any inadequacies highlighted therein.
It's not just arse covering, it's good practice to be sure that the student is as well prepared and ready for the real world as is possible. And as highlighted before, an examiner can only pass or fail based on the standard of flight demonstrated on the day, and advise a candidate on the attitudes shown throughout...
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Nit picking? The rules about instruction from licenced airfields/heliports blah blah blah are well documented. I can't see the point, you can't see the point, the rules are silly, but they ARE the rules. Interesting how radar tapes can be used as Big Brother these days. I know how professional the examiner is, I consider him as a good friend and would choose him to fly my family around anytime. However, if the instructor cut corners by playing the system (even though it didn't affect instructional quality), it portrays him as a rule breaker and questions his integrity if he post dates flights.
I am totally sympathetic, however when you do things like this you just cannot complain if you are caught. Put the yellow pages down the back of your pants and accept the spanking, then move on.
I am totally sympathetic, however when you do things like this you just cannot complain if you are caught. Put the yellow pages down the back of your pants and accept the spanking, then move on.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even slight rule-bending by an instructor when instructing a student who (like many successful private owners) is used to doing as they please could take the student out of the realm of seeing flying as a 'everything-by-the-book' activity into an 'expanding-the-envelope' activity.
If the instructor rigidly enforces the rules, it can't fail to have an impact on the student, and make them more likely to remain safer.
The flip side is that a pilot who is trained to see flying as solely adherence to a set of rules is less likely to be able to instinctively act creatively when faced with difficult scenarios.
I don't know which is best.
Arfur.
If the instructor rigidly enforces the rules, it can't fail to have an impact on the student, and make them more likely to remain safer.
The flip side is that a pilot who is trained to see flying as solely adherence to a set of rules is less likely to be able to instinctively act creatively when faced with difficult scenarios.
I don't know which is best.
Arfur.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...
Nigel H
'Very soon all the FAA licenced pilots will have to have ratings for every type in spite of having flown happily and safely on their FAA tickets'
Are you just saying this to emphasize the way things are going generally, or is there something in the air about Type ratings being introduced for light helos also?
Thanks...170
'Very soon all the FAA licenced pilots will have to have ratings for every type in spite of having flown happily and safely on their FAA tickets'
Are you just saying this to emphasize the way things are going generally, or is there something in the air about Type ratings being introduced for light helos also?
Thanks...170
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bravo73 and others,
I don't know any details about this case, and I agree that instructors and examiners should stick to the rules etc - of course they should. But most people, instructors included, are guilty of occasionally forgetting to dot all the 'i's and cross all the 't's. I find it a dangerous precedent that, after an accident, the CAA can look at the pilot's student records from way back to see if the instructor did everything perfectly - and more importantly recorded it all. Admittedly, this was a very new PPL. But it might not have been. Where do we draw the line? Could they/would they look back 10, 20 years and say, "Ah, it isn't obvious that the pilot was taught 360 degree autos during his course; I can't find any record of it; so we'll blame his original instructor for the accident"? Maybe I'm over-reacting here, but I do find it a bit worrying.
I don't know any details about this case, and I agree that instructors and examiners should stick to the rules etc - of course they should. But most people, instructors included, are guilty of occasionally forgetting to dot all the 'i's and cross all the 't's. I find it a dangerous precedent that, after an accident, the CAA can look at the pilot's student records from way back to see if the instructor did everything perfectly - and more importantly recorded it all. Admittedly, this was a very new PPL. But it might not have been. Where do we draw the line? Could they/would they look back 10, 20 years and say, "Ah, it isn't obvious that the pilot was taught 360 degree autos during his course; I can't find any record of it; so we'll blame his original instructor for the accident"? Maybe I'm over-reacting here, but I do find it a bit worrying.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: London
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
5 years.
You keep the records for five years. It's not an unreasonable period of time, after which one would expect other circumstances to have overridden a pilot's initial training.
I think there's a difference between crossing i's and dotting t's and changing dates of flights, and altering the origins and destinations. Looking through our own school's records, there is an overabundance of paperwork to it, and parts of it historically were not fully completed, however tech logs and student notes must be correlated, and they must all now pass a quality audit prior to a skills test.
It's especially unfortunate given that it's entirely plausible that the FI correctly taught every facet of the training, but because of the manner in which things were fudged, nobody can tell!
You keep the records for five years. It's not an unreasonable period of time, after which one would expect other circumstances to have overridden a pilot's initial training.
I think there's a difference between crossing i's and dotting t's and changing dates of flights, and altering the origins and destinations. Looking through our own school's records, there is an overabundance of paperwork to it, and parts of it historically were not fully completed, however tech logs and student notes must be correlated, and they must all now pass a quality audit prior to a skills test.
It's especially unfortunate given that it's entirely plausible that the FI correctly taught every facet of the training, but because of the manner in which things were fudged, nobody can tell!
In a month or two you will no longer be allowed to fly a UK reg helicopter with a FAA ticket . You can apparently as a one off get a type rating on the helicopter you fly taking you to early next year . Then , as i read it , you will have to have a European licence to fly ANY reg heli in this country . That means a type rating for every helicopter you fly ...regardless of the fact you may have thousands of hours on type . The cost , not to mention time spent , getting say 2 twins and 5 singles on your licence will be huge .
How they stop you using an FAA licence to fly an N reg i dont know I think a lot of pilots who currently own and fly N reg will be giving up if this happens .
How they stop you using an FAA licence to fly an N reg i dont know
I think a lot of pilots who currently own and fly N reg will be giving up if this happens .
After many years of thieving from operators