AAIB Report A109E accident at Vauxhall, and Inquest Verdict
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
t mos
Why do you think that is? Obstacles on the surface perhaps?
Texting in the air during light work load on top with nothing to hit is hardly crazy now is it?
Texting while driving is illegal, has been proven to cause distraction and accidents and is a stupid thing to do
Texting in the air during light work load on top with nothing to hit is hardly crazy now is it?
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He wasn't in marginal weather when he sent/read texts.
He was above it in clear blue skies.
He was above it in clear blue skies.
Instead of just dismissing it as yet another 'one off' we need to look more deeply into the pressures that cause this sort of thing to happen time and time again in the corporate world and try to do change the culture that leads to it.
The culture sure ain't gonna change on its own.
The culture sure ain't gonna change on its own.
Chopjock
Texting in the air during light work load on top with nothing to hit is hardly crazy now is it?
Easily identifiable cultural problem, its called a day rate
Flying experience*: Total all types: 10,234 hours
Total on type: Not known
Last 90 days: 30 hours
Last 28 days: 9 hours
Last 24 hours: 0 hours
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
terminus nos
Your assertion that texting when single pilot in any aircraft at any time is worthy of a Darwin award is utterly ridiculous - and unfairly damning of Pete Barnes. Pete may have made fatal mistakes here, but texting was not one.
His texts were made when he was VMC on top, no doubt A/P coupled. They were brief and pertinent too - this wasn't just idle banter. The ability to text can actuually be a safety aid - sometimes by informing people on the ground of certain things stress can be reduced and flights made more efficient.
Please explain why sending a brief text is any more distracting than, for example, re-programming a route in the GPS, looking at a chart or approach plate and setting up an ILS with frequency selection with navaid identification etc. All quite accepted distractions from simply looking out of the screen or at the panel monitoring instruments and any warnings - the serious of which tend to be audio anyway in the A109.
Your assertion that texting when single pilot in any aircraft at any time is worthy of a Darwin award is utterly ridiculous - and unfairly damning of Pete Barnes. Pete may have made fatal mistakes here, but texting was not one.
His texts were made when he was VMC on top, no doubt A/P coupled. They were brief and pertinent too - this wasn't just idle banter. The ability to text can actuually be a safety aid - sometimes by informing people on the ground of certain things stress can be reduced and flights made more efficient.
Please explain why sending a brief text is any more distracting than, for example, re-programming a route in the GPS, looking at a chart or approach plate and setting up an ILS with frequency selection with navaid identification etc. All quite accepted distractions from simply looking out of the screen or at the panel monitoring instruments and any warnings - the serious of which tend to be audio anyway in the A109.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please explain why sending a brief text is any more distracting than, for example, re-programming a route in the GPS, looking at a chart or approach plate and setting up an ILS with frequency selection with navaid identification etc. All quite accepted distractions from simply looking out of the screen or at the panel monitoring instruments and any warnings - the serious of which tend to be audio anyway in the A109.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASA put it so much better than the rest of us. For commercial air transport at least (and you'd think the guidance would be sensible across all forms of flying): https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Inform...ice2014022.pdf
The operator shall not permit any person to use a portable electronic device (PED) on board an aircraft that could adversely affect the performance of the aircraft’s systems and equipment, and shall take all reasonable measures to prevent such use.
This means that there is per se no ban on the use of PEDs. However, the operator is required to demonstrate that radio frequency emissions from PEDs do not pose a risk to aircraft systems and equipment and that all hazards are mitigated before allowing the use of PEDs on board.
They are, I should point out, specifically talking about non-transmitting PEDs, where less stringent rules apply. If the operator had carried out a demonstration similar to that highlighted in bold and proven that texts could not have an adverse effect on aircraft systems, at least the only question that remains is the issue of distraction from the primary flying task.
The operator shall not permit any person to use a portable electronic device (PED) on board an aircraft that could adversely affect the performance of the aircraft’s systems and equipment, and shall take all reasonable measures to prevent such use.
This means that there is per se no ban on the use of PEDs. However, the operator is required to demonstrate that radio frequency emissions from PEDs do not pose a risk to aircraft systems and equipment and that all hazards are mitigated before allowing the use of PEDs on board.
They are, I should point out, specifically talking about non-transmitting PEDs, where less stringent rules apply. If the operator had carried out a demonstration similar to that highlighted in bold and proven that texts could not have an adverse effect on aircraft systems, at least the only question that remains is the issue of distraction from the primary flying task.
This is an opportunity to call a spade a spade.
The pilot [RiP] was over confident with his skill set that day. No-ONE else should or could be blamed in any shape way or form.
This pilot thought he was above the laws of nature and the industry when he had decided (in himself) that he was going to press on. This wasn't a "press on itis" it was a cold calculated ecsiion to take on the elements to achieve his target.
As 'nice' as he was, as charismatic as he was - he genuinely felt that he was capable of making the venue - against all odds and advice offered to him.
A MASSIVE breakdown in CRM and a very very bad advert to all other wannabee pilots out there that the highest echelons of the professional commercial world - is flawed.
Learn from this - all you who replace his ilk and never ever think or believe you are above it all.
A sad day for our profession. One that we should be ashamed of.
The pilot [RiP] was over confident with his skill set that day. No-ONE else should or could be blamed in any shape way or form.
This pilot thought he was above the laws of nature and the industry when he had decided (in himself) that he was going to press on. This wasn't a "press on itis" it was a cold calculated ecsiion to take on the elements to achieve his target.
As 'nice' as he was, as charismatic as he was - he genuinely felt that he was capable of making the venue - against all odds and advice offered to him.
A MASSIVE breakdown in CRM and a very very bad advert to all other wannabee pilots out there that the highest echelons of the professional commercial world - is flawed.
Learn from this - all you who replace his ilk and never ever think or believe you are above it all.
A sad day for our profession. One that we should be ashamed of.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judgmental opinions arising from 20-20 hindsight are worthless. We need to know why, not just what. And while we are at it, we should also ditch the focus on the texting stuff and instead bundle it with operating electronic devices. There are more distracting FMS and RNAV systems than mobile phones, yet they appear to be acceptable to use. Also, we must accept that legislation, more stringent SOP's, additional regulations will not necessarily improve safety.
Bronx's last post may lead us in the right direction. For example, I hadn't realised that 10,000 hour pilots in charge of highly sophisticated and very expensive helicopters weren't always paid a salary. I'm also no wiser in understanding how charter contracts work when a job can not be executed, either because of poor weather or technical malfunctions. Who gets paid what etc.
Only if we can see things through Peter Barnes' eyes as he saw them will we be able to prevent the next person from seeing what he did, resulting in a similar outcome.
PM
Bronx's last post may lead us in the right direction. For example, I hadn't realised that 10,000 hour pilots in charge of highly sophisticated and very expensive helicopters weren't always paid a salary. I'm also no wiser in understanding how charter contracts work when a job can not be executed, either because of poor weather or technical malfunctions. Who gets paid what etc.
Only if we can see things through Peter Barnes' eyes as he saw them will we be able to prevent the next person from seeing what he did, resulting in a similar outcome.
PM
PM: You are not listening are you. Try not to look for something that is not there. I'm sure like me, you have been in those circumstances where you are 'up against' it (weather in this case) and have done it time and time again and believe it'll work out OK again....It didn't: Quell Surprise. Live with it......he didn't.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we should also ditch the focus on the texting stuff
Throw in a bucketload of commercial pressure and what have you got? Something to do with holes in cheese.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Texting, briefly, in the quiet cruise is just not a distraction risk and focus on it should indeed be ditched. The reality is commercial pressure exists in every part of aviation apart from pleasure flying, but of course we just deal with it. For those that don't do corporate flying just consider how useful it is for those that do to be able to - occasionally - communicate with pax, ground ops, wife etc with a message when plans change. So you've set off for a pick up 150nm away and pax cancels - what do you do? Carry on and only find out when you arrive? Ask ATC etc to relay a message? Or receive a quick text saying job cancelled? Sensibly I'm sure, the latter happens much of the time. Saving a load of money on a wasted flying that no-one wants to pay for in the process. How should pilots communicate when plans change?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am amazed at the tiptoeing going on around here.With the exception of TC,everybody here seems to want to give the pilot a get -out- of -jail -free card.
Fact of the matter is that Peter Barnes might have been God's gift to aviation but,at the end, he was human just like the rest of us.He was afflicted with the very human pressure of making a buck ---or not. He displayed all the Hazardous Attitudes,in spades, and, at the end of a very illustrious career, made a cold calculated decision which cost him his life.There is no getting around all these facts and we will be better served as an industry if we don't.The time for mourning and paying respects is over.The time to learn lessons is here and if we keep trying to blame ATC,Cranes,Culture and what have you,we will have another one of these in short order.
By the way, it is never okay to text or pull out a laptop to check scheduling when you are entrusted with a multi- million dollar asset.I seem to recall a fellow EMS pilot texting and running out of fuel and the group here was quick to condemn. I also recall an airliner that overshot Minneapolis because the pilots were busy with a laptop going over schedules.The former is dead and the latter are without a job.So ,if you call yourself a professional, do not even debate the VFR okay to text/IFR not okay to text issue.It is unbecoming.Ask yourself, where do we draw the line? If it is VFR On Top and I am on autopilot, is it okay to pull out my smart phone and catch up on the latest episode of House Of Cards?
Alt 3.
Fact of the matter is that Peter Barnes might have been God's gift to aviation but,at the end, he was human just like the rest of us.He was afflicted with the very human pressure of making a buck ---or not. He displayed all the Hazardous Attitudes,in spades, and, at the end of a very illustrious career, made a cold calculated decision which cost him his life.There is no getting around all these facts and we will be better served as an industry if we don't.The time for mourning and paying respects is over.The time to learn lessons is here and if we keep trying to blame ATC,Cranes,Culture and what have you,we will have another one of these in short order.
By the way, it is never okay to text or pull out a laptop to check scheduling when you are entrusted with a multi- million dollar asset.I seem to recall a fellow EMS pilot texting and running out of fuel and the group here was quick to condemn. I also recall an airliner that overshot Minneapolis because the pilots were busy with a laptop going over schedules.The former is dead and the latter are without a job.So ,if you call yourself a professional, do not even debate the VFR okay to text/IFR not okay to text issue.It is unbecoming.Ask yourself, where do we draw the line? If it is VFR On Top and I am on autopilot, is it okay to pull out my smart phone and catch up on the latest episode of House Of Cards?
Alt 3.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
The reality is commercial pressure exists in every part of aviation apart from pleasure flying...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, I'm not a pilot....but before you reject my post 
AIUI, the route was "follow the river" had ther been water visible on both sides of the Aircraft, it would not have encountered land-based objects.
Please tell me why i'm wrong.
EDIT.- I accept there are bridges crossing, but clearance should be adequate for any legally-conducted transit.
AIUI, the route was "follow the river" had ther been water visible on both sides of the Aircraft, it would not have encountered land-based objects.
Please tell me why i'm wrong.
EDIT.- I accept there are bridges crossing, but clearance should be adequate for any legally-conducted transit.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The discussion can drift around to all sorts of esoteric issues it wants.
But the simple truth is this was a CFIT event.
It occurred in Daylight over a very large Metropolitan area on a route well known by the Pilot.
The Pilot had elected to divert from his planned route and proceed to a landing site for which he did not have the Reported Weather.
The aircraft was being operated under either VFR or SVFR Rules which require adherence to a certain Minimum Visibility.
The Aircraft was observed to be "in Cloud" at the time of the collision with the Crane.
Even when asked by ATC....the Pilot had reported having "Good" Weather (meaning within VFR/SVFR limits).
The Aircraft was at or below the Minimum Altitude/Height Above Ground permissible by Rule.
At no point had the Pilot reported being IMC, requested an IFR Clearance, or was able to conduct an IFR Approach Procedure for his intended landing site.
I don't care if he was texting on two phones....and doing an Irish Jig while listening to BBC. He plainly was not flying the aircraft in any acceptable manner for the conditions extant.
He was required by his VFR and/or SVFR Clearance to maintain forward visibility and height above ground to facilitate avoiding any obstructions on his Flight Path.
As he was in Cloud he failed to do right.
Blame the Crane, ATC, NATS, God, the Devil, Fate, Luck or whatever.....the PILOT was at the Controls and making the Decisions.
He Failed in several ways.
Sadly, he died and destroyed a perfectly good Helicopter and Crane along with some Vehicles on the Ground.
What is unforgivable, is he killed an innocent person on the ground as well as injuring several others.
He was not a "great" pilot......not by a long shot.
He may have been your Friend but if you are honest with yourself, you will accept even Friends can do harm to others.
But the simple truth is this was a CFIT event.
It occurred in Daylight over a very large Metropolitan area on a route well known by the Pilot.
The Pilot had elected to divert from his planned route and proceed to a landing site for which he did not have the Reported Weather.
The aircraft was being operated under either VFR or SVFR Rules which require adherence to a certain Minimum Visibility.
The Aircraft was observed to be "in Cloud" at the time of the collision with the Crane.
Even when asked by ATC....the Pilot had reported having "Good" Weather (meaning within VFR/SVFR limits).
The Aircraft was at or below the Minimum Altitude/Height Above Ground permissible by Rule.
At no point had the Pilot reported being IMC, requested an IFR Clearance, or was able to conduct an IFR Approach Procedure for his intended landing site.
I don't care if he was texting on two phones....and doing an Irish Jig while listening to BBC. He plainly was not flying the aircraft in any acceptable manner for the conditions extant.
He was required by his VFR and/or SVFR Clearance to maintain forward visibility and height above ground to facilitate avoiding any obstructions on his Flight Path.
As he was in Cloud he failed to do right.
Blame the Crane, ATC, NATS, God, the Devil, Fate, Luck or whatever.....the PILOT was at the Controls and making the Decisions.
He Failed in several ways.
Sadly, he died and destroyed a perfectly good Helicopter and Crane along with some Vehicles on the Ground.
What is unforgivable, is he killed an innocent person on the ground as well as injuring several others.
He was not a "great" pilot......not by a long shot.
He may have been your Friend but if you are honest with yourself, you will accept even Friends can do harm to others.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silsoe - commercial pressure does exist everywhere, though not where you're perhaps thinking of - with pilots during a job. Pilot salaries, conditions, training, aircraft, equipment etc will all be moaned about by pilots at some point, and are examples of the reality of the constraints of commercial pressure in aviation.
Fair post, BB.
Fair post, BB.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
At no point had the Pilot reported being IMC, requested an IFR Clearance, or was able to conduct an IFR Approach Procedure for his intended landing site.
For an experienced helicopter pilot, VFR is easy. IFR is also relatively easy. It's the bit in between that catches people out, as appears to have been the case here.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clarify as you wish.
He was in Cloud.
It was Controlled Airspace was it not?
You are exactly correct there was no Instrument Approach.
He was no longer VMC, VFR, or SVFR.
He had obtained a VFR/SVFR Clearance.
He was not complying with the Requirements of either of those Clearances.
In the UK, can you fly IMC in Controlled Airspace without a IFR Clearance?
He was in Cloud.
It was Controlled Airspace was it not?
You are exactly correct there was no Instrument Approach.
He was no longer VMC, VFR, or SVFR.
He had obtained a VFR/SVFR Clearance.
He was not complying with the Requirements of either of those Clearances.
In the UK, can you fly IMC in Controlled Airspace without a IFR Clearance?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a pilot, but an interested observer. To those so keen to defend the use of a mobile phone whilst flying, consider this.
In the UK. A car/lorry driver using equipment that isn’t hands free is subject to prosecution. A commercial bus or train driver who did this on duty would be subject to instant dismissal, as well as prosecution, even if the event happened on a totally deserted road/track at 0600 on a clear summer Sunday morning. Could you explain why such rules about mobiles exist in other safety critical transport modes but should not apply to helicopter pilots?
As for “Texting in the air during light work load” Flying over one of the most densely populated areas of Europe, with complex air traffic restrictions. That’s a “light workload” situation?
In the UK. A car/lorry driver using equipment that isn’t hands free is subject to prosecution. A commercial bus or train driver who did this on duty would be subject to instant dismissal, as well as prosecution, even if the event happened on a totally deserted road/track at 0600 on a clear summer Sunday morning. Could you explain why such rules about mobiles exist in other safety critical transport modes but should not apply to helicopter pilots?
As for “Texting in the air during light work load” Flying over one of the most densely populated areas of Europe, with complex air traffic restrictions. That’s a “light workload” situation?