Cumbria Helicopter crash discussion
A question posed is just that. If there is no connection, that is, the same examiner is not involved, good.
If on the other hand it is the same examiner then I do see reason to raise the matter. So before you wag your finger at me, please clarify if Mark Weir and Paul Spencer were trained and/or examined by the same person.
TT
If on the other hand it is the same examiner then I do see reason to raise the matter. So before you wag your finger at me, please clarify if Mark Weir and Paul Spencer were trained and/or examined by the same person.
TT
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
There are LOTS of ex-mil examiners. That said, even if it was the same man, that means absolutely nothing. Cowboys present themselves for tests and training knowing exactly what is expected of them. They 'play the game' for a day or two, then head off into the sunset to be cowboys again. You can only examine what you see.
I remember, vividly, the defending actions of several contributors towards this "pilot". Bet they aren't smiling now.
This individual serves to remind those out there who sail close to the wind - you will get your come uppance. Graveyards are littered with them.
You live by the sword and you die by the sword.......who's next
This individual serves to remind those out there who sail close to the wind - you will get your come uppance. Graveyards are littered with them.
You live by the sword and you die by the sword.......who's next
jayteeto,
If it were another examiner, then it would just be an odd coincidence. But were it to be the same examiner, telling the AAIB how impressed they were by the competence of another dead PPL(H) then I find it downright strange.
The differences between Mark Weir and Paul Spencer accidents isn't important. Shared similarities is. One of them was a dangerous trait of invulnerability. If somebody is cocky and has a perception of their abilities at odds with reality, they needed bringing down a peg or two. The last thing they need is to be told how good they are.
Of course, there is no evidence that one or more people told these pilots personally that they were of a 2-3 year operational military pilot standard in the one case, or that they were at a CPL standard in the other. But is it likely that they didn't?
TT
If it were another examiner, then it would just be an odd coincidence. But were it to be the same examiner, telling the AAIB how impressed they were by the competence of another dead PPL(H) then I find it downright strange.
The differences between Mark Weir and Paul Spencer accidents isn't important. Shared similarities is. One of them was a dangerous trait of invulnerability. If somebody is cocky and has a perception of their abilities at odds with reality, they needed bringing down a peg or two. The last thing they need is to be told how good they are.
Of course, there is no evidence that one or more people told these pilots personally that they were of a 2-3 year operational military pilot standard in the one case, or that they were at a CPL standard in the other. But is it likely that they didn't?
TT
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lowfat - you were suggesting a ban on all private helicopters. What has that to dow ith your last post concerning audits etc?
My machines are private and I fly PPL
My machines are properly maintained AND I would not allow any maintenance organisation to do less than a perfect job.
I know of someone who bought a machine just after its 12-year inspection. Performed by a professional and audited maintenance firm. Only it turned out shortly after (when the gearbox failed a couple of tens of flying hours later) that the professional and audited firm had not actually performed the work they had been paid to do (and billed for). The gearbox had not been dismantled and the innards had not been inspected; one bearing was at the end of its life and started to make metal. The machine had falsified paperwork from a professional and audited firm, and the owner had paid for work not done.
"Banning private machines" just makes you sound to me like a troll.
TTB and Misterbonkers have it right in my view; it's all about having a professional attitude and nothing to do with PPL / CPL etc.
My machines are private and I fly PPL
My machines are properly maintained AND I would not allow any maintenance organisation to do less than a perfect job.
I know of someone who bought a machine just after its 12-year inspection. Performed by a professional and audited maintenance firm. Only it turned out shortly after (when the gearbox failed a couple of tens of flying hours later) that the professional and audited firm had not actually performed the work they had been paid to do (and billed for). The gearbox had not been dismantled and the innards had not been inspected; one bearing was at the end of its life and started to make metal. The machine had falsified paperwork from a professional and audited firm, and the owner had paid for work not done.
"Banning private machines" just makes you sound to me like a troll.
TTB and Misterbonkers have it right in my view; it's all about having a professional attitude and nothing to do with PPL / CPL etc.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like many, I read the AAIB report, and thought,
"In this day and age, How can that have been allowed to happen ?"
Then I drew an analogy with driving a car on the roads :
How do you stop people driving on a road without a Licence,
or in a car that is unroadworthy / not legal to be driven on a road ?
Answer - You can't, BUT you can try to minimise it from happening by educating
those that might be tempted as to the consequences, and then by enforcing the Law.
Lots of drivers do get caught, then they are prosecuted, get fined, go to prison, have their cars seized and crushed etc.
Hopefully the punishment they receive deters them and others from doing the same again.
There are lots ( but not as many as there used to be ) of Police Officers out there actively looking for them,
assisted by cameras that read car number plates, and databases that alert them to any wrong doing.
Who is out there actively looking at preventing pilots from flying when they shouldn't be,
or checking aircraft that are flying when they shouldn't be in the air ?
Perhaps no further regulation is needed, after all if the pilot of the Gazelle in this incident had followed the exisiting regulations,
this incident would not have happened, so perhaps a little more checking that exisiting regulations are being complied with wouldn't be a bad thing ?
"In this day and age, How can that have been allowed to happen ?"
Then I drew an analogy with driving a car on the roads :
How do you stop people driving on a road without a Licence,
or in a car that is unroadworthy / not legal to be driven on a road ?
Answer - You can't, BUT you can try to minimise it from happening by educating
those that might be tempted as to the consequences, and then by enforcing the Law.
Lots of drivers do get caught, then they are prosecuted, get fined, go to prison, have their cars seized and crushed etc.
Hopefully the punishment they receive deters them and others from doing the same again.
There are lots ( but not as many as there used to be ) of Police Officers out there actively looking for them,
assisted by cameras that read car number plates, and databases that alert them to any wrong doing.
Who is out there actively looking at preventing pilots from flying when they shouldn't be,
or checking aircraft that are flying when they shouldn't be in the air ?
Perhaps no further regulation is needed, after all if the pilot of the Gazelle in this incident had followed the exisiting regulations,
this incident would not have happened, so perhaps a little more checking that exisiting regulations are being complied with wouldn't be a bad thing ?
Quite frankly, I believe it is up to us pilots to put the word out about bad maintenance orginizations, bad maintenace, bad machines.....and BAD PILOTS...! Various CAA's around the world have anonymous reporting proceesures just for those guys...USE THEM...You'll be saving the rest of us.
I have flown a few dodgy machines and had experience with some bad maintenance organizations and helicopter operation, and I let all my fellow friends and pilots know exactly what I felt about it.
We've got to keep ourselves safe...
I have flown a few dodgy machines and had experience with some bad maintenance organizations and helicopter operation, and I let all my fellow friends and pilots know exactly what I felt about it.
We've got to keep ourselves safe...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure that you are right Flyting about warning of poor/dangerous organisations/pilots. In the world of controlled operations that can have a significant effect. Private owners/PPLs are more difficult ,not because they are likely to be worse, but because there is less control/oversight.
Unless they have changed, the UK CAA is pretty passive about enforcement. It pretty much wants someone to complain and provide all the evidence before it will take an interest. It feels like the FOIs and enforcement branch never talk to each other. Some intelligence or risk-based enforcement might help.
Unless they have changed, the UK CAA is pretty passive about enforcement. It pretty much wants someone to complain and provide all the evidence before it will take an interest. It feels like the FOIs and enforcement branch never talk to each other. Some intelligence or risk-based enforcement might help.
Flyting I tend to agree with you for as much as Coconutty's query is valid we know that budgetary provision for policing general (or even commercial) aviation operations is unlikely in the near future.
However, my preferred approach is to speak to offenders in person before taking further action. Sometimes their transgressions are performed in ignorance (sometimes among newbies for example) and once alerted of their shortcomings are willing to improve. Others, when facing the possibility of further action will be motivated to change while some may offer a dismissal which includes the phrase "Foxtrot Oscar" and in which case one has no alternative but to take it to the next level.
.
.
However, my preferred approach is to speak to offenders in person before taking further action. Sometimes their transgressions are performed in ignorance (sometimes among newbies for example) and once alerted of their shortcomings are willing to improve. Others, when facing the possibility of further action will be motivated to change while some may offer a dismissal which includes the phrase "Foxtrot Oscar" and in which case one has no alternative but to take it to the next level.
.
.
md,
I know. And his fixed wing experince gave him a level of comfort in the helicopter which did not match his experience basis. Having a basic mastery of low speed manouvres does not equip you to go and do what he did in the circumstances he did it. Both sad and maddening.
TT
I know. And his fixed wing experince gave him a level of comfort in the helicopter which did not match his experience basis. Having a basic mastery of low speed manouvres does not equip you to go and do what he did in the circumstances he did it. Both sad and maddening.
TT
TC
Was this some form of contest for you? I don't think you'll find there were any contributors smiling on this thread - except probably you 
I remember, vividly, the defending actions of several contributors towards this "pilot". Bet they aren't smiling now.
TTB - I actually think this is the kind of post being hinted at:-
Actually you can make a judgement on not just someones flying ability but their motivations and mental attitude from much of the published material.
You might decide to suggest that the judgement is wrong but never the less. In a thread of 10 pages what is quite interesting is that some people seem to "get it" within the first moments while others defend this insanity to the bitter end.
Jim, Reno, P51 or Mark, Cumbria, Gazelle. Same, same.
The decision whether to fly or not is a different issue. The point I'm making is that Mark was a sound pilot and one should judge neither his decision process that night, nor his flying ability on some random YT clips.
You might decide to suggest that the judgement is wrong but never the less. In a thread of 10 pages what is quite interesting is that some people seem to "get it" within the first moments while others defend this insanity to the bitter end.
Jim, Reno, P51 or Mark, Cumbria, Gazelle. Same, same.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Through my job in ATC I got to know Mark very well. To be honest he was one of the nicest and most charming people that I have ever met had the privelage to meet.
He was a great Father and a great rock to his partner.
From reading this AAIB report I realise now that maybe he mucked up in a big way......he was a cavalier person that maybe in aviation does not fit too well.....but did that make him a bad person?.....I think not.....to those of you on this forum that choose to make slanderous statements against Mark I wonder how you sleep peacefully at night? I for sure know Mark had more friends and supporters than you ever will.......he turned Honister slate mine from nothing to the tourist attraction that it is today.......lets just hope we can all learn from Mark's mistakes.....I am sure if we can,Mark would appreciatte that.....
He was a great Father and a great rock to his partner.
From reading this AAIB report I realise now that maybe he mucked up in a big way......he was a cavalier person that maybe in aviation does not fit too well.....but did that make him a bad person?.....I think not.....to those of you on this forum that choose to make slanderous statements against Mark I wonder how you sleep peacefully at night? I for sure know Mark had more friends and supporters than you ever will.......he turned Honister slate mine from nothing to the tourist attraction that it is today.......lets just hope we can all learn from Mark's mistakes.....I am sure if we can,Mark would appreciatte that.....
FBW - I'm sure he was all the things to you that you say.
Did it make him a bad person, etc, etc who is to judge. The guy lost his life and a family lost this man that you say was a good man. That is a heavy price to pay.
Its the mental side rather than the physical side thats the biggest danger in aviation. As has been said elsewhere and before on this thread it doesn't take "balls" or "skill" to take your brain out and to be reckless.
Your attitude (and those with similar) in terms of the defence of the man does nothing to really discourage what ultimately wrapped him up.
In fact when you start throwing around threatening terms - as you did in the early years - like "slanderous" it is truely remarkable how far even aviation professionals will go in defence and for what?
This guy was out of control with a disregard for his own safety and that of others. Someone should have taken this guy aside years ago and had a strong word.
Did it make him a bad person, etc, etc who is to judge. The guy lost his life and a family lost this man that you say was a good man. That is a heavy price to pay.
Its the mental side rather than the physical side thats the biggest danger in aviation. As has been said elsewhere and before on this thread it doesn't take "balls" or "skill" to take your brain out and to be reckless.
Your attitude (and those with similar) in terms of the defence of the man does nothing to really discourage what ultimately wrapped him up.
In fact when you start throwing around threatening terms - as you did in the early years - like "slanderous" it is truely remarkable how far even aviation professionals will go in defence and for what?
This guy was out of control with a disregard for his own safety and that of others. Someone should have taken this guy aside years ago and had a strong word.
Pitts
You missed my point which was that I don't think anyone contributing to this thread found anything amusing in it.
However, ask 100 car drivers if they think they're a good driver, and 90 will say yes. What does that mean? They may be technically competent, but then drive too fast for the conditions, making them a poor driver. Technically, I believe Mark was competent, but as has been said a dozen times, it was his mental approach that was flawed. Whatever, I wouldn't judge a case until I'd heard the facts.
The most important thing is that others learn from his error. I personally know of 4 pilots who 'had a word' with Mark, but I don't think anything would have reset his ego except maybe an accident he could have walked away from. Then again, that could have simply fuelled his feeling of invicibility.
You missed my point which was that I don't think anyone contributing to this thread found anything amusing in it.
However, ask 100 car drivers if they think they're a good driver, and 90 will say yes. What does that mean? They may be technically competent, but then drive too fast for the conditions, making them a poor driver. Technically, I believe Mark was competent, but as has been said a dozen times, it was his mental approach that was flawed. Whatever, I wouldn't judge a case until I'd heard the facts.
The most important thing is that others learn from his error. I personally know of 4 pilots who 'had a word' with Mark, but I don't think anything would have reset his ego except maybe an accident he could have walked away from. Then again, that could have simply fuelled his feeling of invicibility.
TTB: Is there a tiny streak of weir in you perhaps: Please accept that from the initial warning signs (when this story went live) it was blatantly apparent he was oblivious to criticism when it came to anything to do with his outlook in aviation. Simply accept that your defence of this individual was untennable in light of the results of the AAIB.
"Technically I believe Mark was competent". Sorry - have you read the same report that I just read?
It goes onto list his incompetence in maintaining the a/c log book. His unadulterated removal of the fire warning panel in the cockpit because ot wasn't working properly. His fiddling of night flying log book entries. His turning of a blind eye when the maintenance organisation didn't do their jobs properly.
All this is "technical" stuff. Why are you still defending this "crook".
If he'd offered your family a trip in his helicopter as a jolly whilst on holiday with his family and the worst happened....would you be defending him then?
Cough to it TTB, it's OK to admit one has anothers traits wrong - it's normal.
The man was a dangerous liability and I wonder if this pervaded other parts of his life - but lnow's not the time nor place to discuss that.
Pittsextra: bang on.
"Technically I believe Mark was competent". Sorry - have you read the same report that I just read?
It goes onto list his incompetence in maintaining the a/c log book. His unadulterated removal of the fire warning panel in the cockpit because ot wasn't working properly. His fiddling of night flying log book entries. His turning of a blind eye when the maintenance organisation didn't do their jobs properly.
All this is "technical" stuff. Why are you still defending this "crook".
If he'd offered your family a trip in his helicopter as a jolly whilst on holiday with his family and the worst happened....would you be defending him then?
Cough to it TTB, it's OK to admit one has anothers traits wrong - it's normal.
The man was a dangerous liability and I wonder if this pervaded other parts of his life - but lnow's not the time nor place to discuss that.
Pittsextra: bang on.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC did you also read the report ??
where did it say??
in maintaining the a/c log book.
His unadulterated removal of the fire warning panel in the cockpit because ot wasn't working properly. [[strong words it said there was a fire warning device fitted when the aircraft was under faa control i am not sure if all authoritys mandated this upgrade i have flown aircraft on uk register with no fire warning ever been fitted and i think all serbian gazelles [the source of the 111B engine ]] dont have any fire warning fitted , ]] so maybe it was not required anyway
His fiddling of night flying log book entries. [[ i thought the report said no log book was found]]
His turning of a blind eye when the maintenance organisation didn't do their jobs properly. cant even find reference to this
also when you flew uk military military gazelles did you know that your engine the 111n2 was also not a certifable engine similar to the 111B
i think everyone knows why marks accident happened , it was a major error of judgement which mark paid the ultimate price i would also like to think if mark had a passenger the flight would not have happened as i think the risk factor would have been too much
cant this be put to bed once and for all and it be a reminder to all of us about pushing the envelope and when not to fly
and yes i was one of them that had a quiet word with mark and i also have to live with thought i should could have said more !!!!
where did it say??
in maintaining the a/c log book.
His unadulterated removal of the fire warning panel in the cockpit because ot wasn't working properly. [[strong words it said there was a fire warning device fitted when the aircraft was under faa control i am not sure if all authoritys mandated this upgrade i have flown aircraft on uk register with no fire warning ever been fitted and i think all serbian gazelles [the source of the 111B engine ]] dont have any fire warning fitted , ]] so maybe it was not required anyway
His fiddling of night flying log book entries. [[ i thought the report said no log book was found]]
His turning of a blind eye when the maintenance organisation didn't do their jobs properly. cant even find reference to this
also when you flew uk military military gazelles did you know that your engine the 111n2 was also not a certifable engine similar to the 111B
i think everyone knows why marks accident happened , it was a major error of judgement which mark paid the ultimate price i would also like to think if mark had a passenger the flight would not have happened as i think the risk factor would have been too much
cant this be put to bed once and for all and it be a reminder to all of us about pushing the envelope and when not to fly
and yes i was one of them that had a quiet word with mark and i also have to live with thought i should could have said more !!!!
Last edited by md 600 driver; 15th Oct 2012 at 14:17.
TC - I really can't be bothered to get into an argument with you because, to be quite honest, I don't think you're bright enough to have a sensible one.
Please don't misunderstand the context of 'technically'; it doesn't mean 'mechanically'.
One last thing, I'd quickly edit your last post if I were you. Accusing someone of being a crook on a public forum might be considered by some (not least Mark's family its legal advisors) to be libellous. Even though the individual has passed away, you could still find yourself being sued for defamation.
Here's a link to save you looking these up.
Please don't misunderstand the context of 'technically'; it doesn't mean 'mechanically'.
One last thing, I'd quickly edit your last post if I were you. Accusing someone of being a crook on a public forum might be considered by some (not least Mark's family its legal advisors) to be libellous. Even though the individual has passed away, you could still find yourself being sued for defamation.
Here's a link to save you looking these up.