Crash near Harrogate, UK: January 2008
From a local paper.
Millionaire pilot had not flown enough to qualify for licence before fatal crash, court told (From The Northern Echo)
Millionaire pilot had not flown enough to qualify for licence before fatal crash, court told (From The Northern Echo)
A MILLIONAIRE killed in a helicopter crash with his wife kept an unofficial log book of his training which revealed he had not completed enough hours to qualify for his pilot's licence, a jury heard today (January 2).
Paul Spencer was only able to obtain his licence because his flight instructor, Ian King, falsified the records of his instruction, it was alleged.
But the official log book was exposed as "a lie" when an alternative version was found among the wealthy businessman's papers after he and wife Linda, 59, were killed.
The Westland Gazelle aircraft crashed at the Rudding Park Hotel, near Harrogate, while being flown by Mr Spencer, Leeds Crown Court heard.
After the tragedy in January 2008 - only about a month after 43-year-old Mr Spencer was issued with his private pilot's licence - the Civil Aviation Authority launched an investigation.
According to the official record of his training submitted by Mr King, of Wetherby, North Yorkshire, Mr Spencer had completed more than 51 hours of training, including the required ten hours of solo flight. The minimum required total hours is 40.
But the logbook kept by the businessman, from Brighouse, West Yorkshire, recorded little more than eight-and-a-half hours of solo flight.
Martin Goudie, prosecuting, said: "We are not here to decide why the helicopter crashed or whether Paul Spencer was a good pilot.
"What we are here to look at is the training that took place of Mr Spencer.
"Following the crash, an investigation was carried out into the circumstances surrounding it.
"Mr Spencer's licence had been issued on December 21 2007, a month before the crash, and King was his flying instructor.
"He had certified Mr Spencer had completed the required training and certified the log book as correct.
"As papers were gone through following Mr Spencer's death they found a different set of hours - they weren't the same hours and they didn't amount to the correct hours to complete the training."
Analysis of the businessman's online activity and phone records showed he was making calls and dealing with emails at many times when he was supposed to be in the air.
They also used a Met Office expert to check the weather reports and found certain dates would have been unsuitable for flying, it was claimed.
The helicopter was also out of commission on a number of days when Mr Spencer was supposed to be training, according to the official log submitted to the CAA by Mr King in December 2007.
"That simply was a lie and he knew it was a lie and misled the Civil Aviation Authority to help Mr Spencer get his licence in quick time," the prosecutor added.
Mr King, 53, of Wetherby, denies making false representations to procure a pilot's licence.
The trial was adjourned until Thursday (January 3).
Paul Spencer was only able to obtain his licence because his flight instructor, Ian King, falsified the records of his instruction, it was alleged.
But the official log book was exposed as "a lie" when an alternative version was found among the wealthy businessman's papers after he and wife Linda, 59, were killed.
The Westland Gazelle aircraft crashed at the Rudding Park Hotel, near Harrogate, while being flown by Mr Spencer, Leeds Crown Court heard.
After the tragedy in January 2008 - only about a month after 43-year-old Mr Spencer was issued with his private pilot's licence - the Civil Aviation Authority launched an investigation.
According to the official record of his training submitted by Mr King, of Wetherby, North Yorkshire, Mr Spencer had completed more than 51 hours of training, including the required ten hours of solo flight. The minimum required total hours is 40.
But the logbook kept by the businessman, from Brighouse, West Yorkshire, recorded little more than eight-and-a-half hours of solo flight.
Martin Goudie, prosecuting, said: "We are not here to decide why the helicopter crashed or whether Paul Spencer was a good pilot.
"What we are here to look at is the training that took place of Mr Spencer.
"Following the crash, an investigation was carried out into the circumstances surrounding it.
"Mr Spencer's licence had been issued on December 21 2007, a month before the crash, and King was his flying instructor.
"He had certified Mr Spencer had completed the required training and certified the log book as correct.
"As papers were gone through following Mr Spencer's death they found a different set of hours - they weren't the same hours and they didn't amount to the correct hours to complete the training."
Analysis of the businessman's online activity and phone records showed he was making calls and dealing with emails at many times when he was supposed to be in the air.
They also used a Met Office expert to check the weather reports and found certain dates would have been unsuitable for flying, it was claimed.
The helicopter was also out of commission on a number of days when Mr Spencer was supposed to be training, according to the official log submitted to the CAA by Mr King in December 2007.
"That simply was a lie and he knew it was a lie and misled the Civil Aviation Authority to help Mr Spencer get his licence in quick time," the prosecutor added.
Mr King, 53, of Wetherby, denies making false representations to procure a pilot's licence.
The trial was adjourned until Thursday (January 3).
TC
Paul Spencer is dead. So is his wife. As far as I know there wasn't much wrong with his genes, or indeed his personality.
There is, with hindsight, a lot to suggest that his attitude set was hazardous. Unluckily for him, he was able find someone to expedite his flight training without this being routed and challenged.
The consequences of this whole sorry affair are tragic and certainly not over for those involved (Paul and Linda excepted).
The "gene pool" is, if anything, poorer for his (their) loss.
Please refrain from trite pseudo-Darwinian witicisms.
Paul Spencer is dead. So is his wife. As far as I know there wasn't much wrong with his genes, or indeed his personality.
There is, with hindsight, a lot to suggest that his attitude set was hazardous. Unluckily for him, he was able find someone to expedite his flight training without this being routed and challenged.
The consequences of this whole sorry affair are tragic and certainly not over for those involved (Paul and Linda excepted).
The "gene pool" is, if anything, poorer for his (their) loss.
Please refrain from trite pseudo-Darwinian witicisms.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few weeks ago a certain Tory was accused of things and writers ended up paying huge amounts of money in compensation
At the moment the prosecution has entered their views of the whole miss fortunate affair it may be prudent to wait until the court has found someone guilty /not guilty before airing your views on their guilt
At the moment the prosecution has entered their views of the whole miss fortunate affair it may be prudent to wait until the court has found someone guilty /not guilty before airing your views on their guilt
Last edited by md 600 driver; 3rd Jan 2013 at 08:07.
Fully appreciate your comments MD600 and, it goes without saying that people have to be accountable for what they proclaim or say, but not on this website.......
Let's try and keep it 'Un-accountable' and without fear of action otherwise no one will venture to say anything, anytime.
Like I said, in this situation, there appears nothing pertinent to say unless someone knows the facts before the court decides.
Personally, have not a scoobie, all I know is that I was hunkered down and not flying on the day of the accident as no one in their right mind would have been flying in the area at the time......
As for falsifying records - again, not a scoobie, so can't even jump to a knee-jerk conclusion ;-)
Let's try and keep it 'Un-accountable' and without fear of action otherwise no one will venture to say anything, anytime.
Like I said, in this situation, there appears nothing pertinent to say unless someone knows the facts before the court decides.
Personally, have not a scoobie, all I know is that I was hunkered down and not flying on the day of the accident as no one in their right mind would have been flying in the area at the time......
As for falsifying records - again, not a scoobie, so can't even jump to a knee-jerk conclusion ;-)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JA - not our choice. We are accountable under laws of slander / libel for what we say on this - and any other - website. The only questions are whether a slanderous post is seen by the person slandered / libeled and whether that person is sufficiently aggrieved to push the matter.
Better therefore not to make slanderous / libelous posts. That does not stop speculation, only slander or libel.
Better therefore not to make slanderous / libelous posts. That does not stop speculation, only slander or libel.
Last edited by John R81; 4th Jan 2013 at 21:09.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Julie Andrews you obviously havnt read this announcement at the top of every page:
CleeIB
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: El Segundo
Posts: 501
Notice regarding post responsibility and anonymity
NOTICE: You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Recent high-profile defamation events illustrate that there are ways in which third parties can force personal data, including contents of personal messages, to be released by bulletin board owners. Be careful - libelous/defamatory posts can and have landed members in legal hot water. PPRuNe will not guarantee your anonymity in such situations.
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: El Segundo
Posts: 501
Notice regarding post responsibility and anonymity
NOTICE: You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Recent high-profile defamation events illustrate that there are ways in which third parties can force personal data, including contents of personal messages, to be released by bulletin board owners. Be careful - libelous/defamatory posts can and have landed members in legal hot water. PPRuNe will not guarantee your anonymity in such situations.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Uk
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fatal helicopter flight instructor Ian King found guilty
Fatal helicopter flight instructor Ian King found guilty
A flying instructor whose student died in a helicopter crash has been found guilty of lying to get him a licence.
Ian King, 53, of West Yorkshire, had denied signing off inaccurate training records for Paul Spencer.
Mr Spencer and his wife Linda died in the crash at Rudding Park, near Harrogate, on 26 January 2008.
The judge at the five-day trial at Leeds Crown Court said Mr King displayed a "gross breach of trust". He will be sentenced next month.
In 2007, former Army captain Mr King recorded that his pupil had completed 51 training flying hours against the Civil Aviation Authority's demanded minimum of 45 hours.
Fast-track process
Following the crash, a record of Mr Spencer's flying experience was discovered among his papers that was different from the hours recorded in the official log submitted for his licence.
The prosecution said that Mr King knew it was false, but certified it to fast-track the process for his student, displaying an "utter disregard" for aviation rules.
The jury found him guilty of making a false representation with intent to deceive the Civil Aviation Authority
Mr Spencer, 43, and his wife, 59, from Brighouse, had just returned from a holiday in the Caribbean when they were killed.
The couple, who ran Country Baskets, a business which sold dried flowers, were regular visitors to the Rudding Park Hotel.
Following the sentencing, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said: "Flight instructors have a duty to certify training truthfully and accurately.
"Following the tragic deaths of Paul and Linda Spencer, the CAA sought corroboration from Paul Spencer's instructor, Ian King, of his certification of Mr Spencer's training.
"No corroboration was found and the decision was taken to prosecute Mr King."
A flying instructor whose student died in a helicopter crash has been found guilty of lying to get him a licence.
Ian King, 53, of West Yorkshire, had denied signing off inaccurate training records for Paul Spencer.
Mr Spencer and his wife Linda died in the crash at Rudding Park, near Harrogate, on 26 January 2008.
The judge at the five-day trial at Leeds Crown Court said Mr King displayed a "gross breach of trust". He will be sentenced next month.
In 2007, former Army captain Mr King recorded that his pupil had completed 51 training flying hours against the Civil Aviation Authority's demanded minimum of 45 hours.
Fast-track process
Following the crash, a record of Mr Spencer's flying experience was discovered among his papers that was different from the hours recorded in the official log submitted for his licence.
The prosecution said that Mr King knew it was false, but certified it to fast-track the process for his student, displaying an "utter disregard" for aviation rules.
The jury found him guilty of making a false representation with intent to deceive the Civil Aviation Authority
Mr Spencer, 43, and his wife, 59, from Brighouse, had just returned from a holiday in the Caribbean when they were killed.
The couple, who ran Country Baskets, a business which sold dried flowers, were regular visitors to the Rudding Park Hotel.
Following the sentencing, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said: "Flight instructors have a duty to certify training truthfully and accurately.
"Following the tragic deaths of Paul and Linda Spencer, the CAA sought corroboration from Paul Spencer's instructor, Ian King, of his certification of Mr Spencer's training.
"No corroboration was found and the decision was taken to prosecute Mr King."
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So helicopter instructor Ian King has been found guilty of altering pupil's logbook to fast track his license.
No doubt he was impressed by Mr. Spencer's previous experience in fixed wing aircraft, and by his confidence and capability. It seems to me, a humble gliding instructor and tug pilot who used to dodge helicopers at Wycombe Air Park, that flying a helicopter is completely and absolutely different from fixed wing. And that a pilot faced with a big problem will tend to revert to original training....eg diving at the ground in a spin, pull back on the stick to raise the nose.....
So should not helicopter instructors be even more firm about converting fixed wing pilots to rotary, than they have to be with ab initios who have absolutely no flying experience whatsoever....
No doubt he was impressed by Mr. Spencer's previous experience in fixed wing aircraft, and by his confidence and capability. It seems to me, a humble gliding instructor and tug pilot who used to dodge helicopers at Wycombe Air Park, that flying a helicopter is completely and absolutely different from fixed wing. And that a pilot faced with a big problem will tend to revert to original training....eg diving at the ground in a spin, pull back on the stick to raise the nose.....
So should not helicopter instructors be even more firm about converting fixed wing pilots to rotary, than they have to be with ab initios who have absolutely no flying experience whatsoever....
So should not helicopter instructors be even more firm about converting fixed wing pilots to rotary, than they have to be with ab initios who have absolutely no flying experience whatsoever....
Yes
Mary M
Your quote below shows you have never flown a helicopter
A helicopter is controlled just like an aeroplane - attitude controls speed, power controls height and lateral movement of the stick controls direction. The only difference is the landing phase! You also can't spin a helicopter so there is no need to "dive towards the ground" and pulling back on the stick does raise the nose!!
The controls are slightly different in that the collective controls the power as most turbine helicopters nowadays have computer to feed in power as the collective is raised.
I have flown both rotary and fixed wing on the same day and have never got so confused as to try to hover an aeroplane (OK once in a Harrier) or land a helicopter at 50+Kts
HF
Your quote below shows you have never flown a helicopter
that flying a helicopter is completely and absolutely different from fixed wing. And that a pilot faced with a big problem will tend to revert to original training....eg diving at the ground in a spin, pull back on the stick to raise the nose.....
The controls are slightly different in that the collective controls the power as most turbine helicopters nowadays have computer to feed in power as the collective is raised.
I have flown both rotary and fixed wing on the same day and have never got so confused as to try to hover an aeroplane (OK once in a Harrier) or land a helicopter at 50+Kts
HF
Last edited by Hummingfrog; 10th Jan 2013 at 21:49.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura Ca U.S.A.
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hummingfrog? Helicopters fly like helicopters, You sound like a sim flyer.
& most helicopters don't have computers for Droop compensation,unless its FADEC
,And thats not too much with the old iron.
Old fashoned Flyweight governors do good enough,Seen FADEC close shop in the middle of flight. Check the ADs,
FADEC Found another dead engine control.
You sound like a sim flyer.& most helicopters don't have computers for Droop compensation,unless its FADEC
,And thats not too much with the old iron.Old fashoned Flyweight governors do good enough,Seen FADEC close shop in the middle of flight. Check the ADs,
FADEC Found another dead engine control.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
It's not completely and absolutely different, although there are one or two situations in helicopters where, if you do the logical thing, you will kill yourself - they are situations that you definitely need to be aware of.
Other than that, as one holding both licences and with 3-4000 hours on each class, I have always regarded helicopters as just another type rating. Roll on the tiltrotor
Phil
Other than that, as one holding both licences and with 3-4000 hours on each class, I have always regarded helicopters as just another type rating. Roll on the tiltrotor
Phil
Last edited by paco; 11th Jan 2013 at 04:08.
Funny (for want of a batter word given the circumstance) when these threads resurface some time after the initial accident just how accurate the first posts turn out to be.
hummingfrog
The difference between flying a plank and a helicopter is that years of training/habit becomes instinctive - and potentially lethal when an instant reaction is called for. If the engine on a plank fails, you push the stick forward. If the engine on a helicopter fails, you pull the cyclic back.
If you have amassed 000's of hours on planks and convert to rotary, instinctively pushing the nose down in the event of a failure is a very real risk and one that is the suspected cause of several accidents involving high time f/w, low time r/w pilots.
Bimbling along in the cruise, I agree - not a lot of difference.
The difference between flying a plank and a helicopter is that years of training/habit becomes instinctive - and potentially lethal when an instant reaction is called for. If the engine on a plank fails, you push the stick forward. If the engine on a helicopter fails, you pull the cyclic back.
If you have amassed 000's of hours on planks and convert to rotary, instinctively pushing the nose down in the event of a failure is a very real risk and one that is the suspected cause of several accidents involving high time f/w, low time r/w pilots.
Bimbling along in the cruise, I agree - not a lot of difference.
TTB - pushing the stick or pulling the cyclic and motor failures are not entirely relevant in this case though are they??
What would be interesting would be knowing the route to the pilot into his machine..
What would be interesting would be knowing the route to the pilot into his machine..
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Hummingfrog, you are quite right, I have never FLOWN a helicopter. All my time (3000 + hours) is flying what your colleagues so delightfully term a PLANK! I have enjoyed four rides in helicopters - (what should we plankdrivers call helicopters? any suggestions? ....eggbeaters, etc)
I was especially interested to observe the maneuver which I understand is used when the donkey (Lycoming?) goes quiet, is that called an autorotation?
And if the donkey goes quiet, that is an emergency, yes? so stick held back? (as in the Air France Airbus cockpit) We plank drivers, if it all goes quiet, usually have a reasonable chance of gliding down to a safe arrival, if we remember NOT to hold the stick back.
I was especially interested to observe the maneuver which I understand is used when the donkey (Lycoming?) goes quiet, is that called an autorotation?
And if the donkey goes quiet, that is an emergency, yes? so stick held back? (as in the Air France Airbus cockpit) We plank drivers, if it all goes quiet, usually have a reasonable chance of gliding down to a safe arrival, if we remember NOT to hold the stick back.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
SS - good find
Pitts - Paul was hover-taxiing in 18G34 after 800 hours on planks (sorry Mary - the 'e' on my keyboard doesn't work, so I have to use a 'k'), but only 56 hours r/w and 46 on type (give or take 10 hours...).
The point is, all those f/w hours counted for nothing in this case - he wasn't trained/experienced to a standard sufficient to cope with the conditions he found himself in. Any similarities when flying in the cruise were academic.
Pitts - Paul was hover-taxiing in 18G34 after 800 hours on planks (sorry Mary - the 'e' on my keyboard doesn't work, so I have to use a 'k'
), but only 56 hours r/w and 46 on type (give or take 10 hours...).The point is, all those f/w hours counted for nothing in this case - he wasn't trained/experienced to a standard sufficient to cope with the conditions he found himself in. Any similarities when flying in the cruise were academic.