Cardiff City Footballer Feared Missing after aircraft disappeared near Channel Island
For example in UK -
In the year 2017/18 144 people died in workplace accidents.[1]
It is estimated that in 2012 1,000 people die in road accidents each year while at work.[2]
For reasons unknown we do not include road deaths as workplace deaths.
We demand that the workplace be as safe as practicable however we do not make such demands on the roads. I believe there have been pressures to include At Work road deaths as Work Related deaths which would mean that road deaths at work might be investigated by the HSE. This has been resisted by the voters since as alluded to by the @ShropshirePilot we are happy enough to accept road deaths as a cost of doing business.
[1] http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/pdf/fatalinjuries.pdf
[2] https://worksmart.org.uk/health-advi...e-killed-while
Pegase Driver
More regulations are not going to prevent this as this was not operated as a commercial operation from the outset .
Some individual(s) decided to bend the rules, putting stronger rules in place would only penalize those of us following them .
Some individual(s) decided to bend the rules, putting stronger rules in place would only penalize those of us following them .
That needs to change - big time.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: TL487591
Posts: 1,639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We might want to be careful what we wish for.
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Craven Arms
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not suggesting that we adopt the same approach to aviation as to road safety - quite the opposite in fact - but the fact that globally every single GA crash is deemed newsworthy suggests to me that this activity, when carried out sensibly, is actually very safe indeed but that the general public (and my brother in law especially!!) think that he takes his life in his hands when flying GA. We are still all more likely to cop it on the way to the airfield!
Last edited by ShropshirePilot; 9th Feb 2019 at 13:39. Reason: shortening required!
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I recall hearing a figure of 7 times a while back though I think that was in the field of leisure GA rather than commercial GA travel. Incidentally the most dangerous possible leisure activity you can do is horse riding.
It's the same erroneous perception made about how dangerous motorways and dual carriageways are. Yet due to the huge traffic flows on them their accident rate per vehicle mile traveled is very low. Near to me two single carriage A roads were identified in an Euro study of being of the most dangerous in the UK: they did not have much traffic on them yet manage to accumulate huge number of fatalities. Yet in the local news all we hear (after some gargantuan pile up) is how we desperately need updates to a major dual carriage A road in the area as it is so dangerous.......errr no it is not.
snip). A call for more regulations is the same way wrong as the call for more enforcement. We do have sufficient regulations and laws to deal with such issues.
We should not give our current self elected oppressors even more power.
We do not need more ramp checks, we already have the needed knowledge ourselves.
(Snip)
Anybody getting aware of those breaches of regulations simply has to call the police or other authorities to deal with it, immediately the moment it happens, not after damage is done. With enforcement we give our power out of our hands, we depersonalize our accountability and hand it over to somebody we don't know what they do with it in the end.
We should not give our current self elected oppressors even more power.
We do not need more ramp checks, we already have the needed knowledge ourselves.
(Snip)
Anybody getting aware of those breaches of regulations simply has to call the police or other authorities to deal with it, immediately the moment it happens, not after damage is done. With enforcement we give our power out of our hands, we depersonalize our accountability and hand it over to somebody we don't know what they do with it in the end.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A "BOLLEAUX" ? Whatever is meant by that, it is not what the majority of those who participate on PPRUNE. Most of us feel and deep sense of concern when a tragic incident occurs in aviation. Many of us wish to learn from it and try and do our best to avoid our human inadequecies, shortcomings and failings. We try to pool and share our knowledge and understanding in this field of human endeavour. Yes we do speculate, but even in that there is some value to others. There could be much error in what has been said, but at least we learn what is incorrect from those who know better. The whole world is shocked by this tragic loss. We as pilots once, pilots now and pilots in the future, are certainly most concerned over the impact it has and will have in the future and our role and interest in aviation. Those are not "bolleaux`s.
It's in our DNA to question , learn and advance
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it is curious.Makes me wonder whether photo /video imagery from a ROV is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion for the cause or whether the costs involved in raising the wreckage may not be in the public interest, given that a light aircraft on private flight is involved. After all the large scale news and media coverage of this story perhaps is sufficient to have raised public awareness of travel by such means of air transport. I`d imagine in the future before some unwitting member of the public is about to board such a flight he/she or they or some other person concerned with theirs, their own, their business or their families, may ask a few pertinent questions about the flight . Unless of course they have a well developed sense of adventure, and as must be said there could be no adventure without risk. And that depends on how much adrenaline is required for the particular person with the habit.
Yes it is curious.Makes me wonder whether photo /video imagery from a ROV is sufficient to arrive at a conclusion for the cause or whether the costs involved in raising the wreckage may not be in the public interest, given that a light aircraft on private flight is involved. After all the large scale news and media coverage of this story perhaps is sufficient to have raised public awareness of travel by such means of air transport. I`d imagine in the future before some unwitting member of the public is about to board such a flight he/she or they or some other person concerned with theirs, their own, their business or their families, may ask a few pertinent questions about the flight . Unless of course they have a well developed sense of adventure, and as must be said there could be no adventure without risk. And that depends on how much adrenaline is required for the particular person with the habit.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Northampton
Age: 68
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As with I am sure most here, my initial thoughts are for the families concerned. My second thoughts concern some of the decisions made that night. My third thoughts stem from some of the revelations in this thread concerning what appears to me to be 'pilots' acting totally outside of the remit of an appropriate licence.
With regard to the second, the actual direct end cause of the accident is as yet uncertain. However, there seems little doubt that at least two people should never have been in that situation in the first place. As someone posted earlier, single-engine flying is not inherently unsafe, nor is a single-engine flight at night or over water. But add them all together, and the risk factor increases. Add in icing conditions and the risk factor goes up more. Add in a (potential) lack of pilot experience of the combination of aircraft type and the conditions, and it goes off the scale. We will never know the reasons for some of the decisions that were made, but most of us know the pressure some people can exert and not everyone finds it easy to say no. This especially if you put yourself in the position of someone who possibly should not really have been where they were and didn't have the financial means to stay there. There are very few here who have had years sitting at the pointy end who haven't at some time been pressured in one way or another. There are times it takes a lot to say no, and as other incidents have unfortunately shown, there are times people have failed to say no to the person sitting next to them, and have paid the ultimate price.
Like a lot of others here, I started off longer ago than I care to remember, with a combination of a freshly-minted PPL, youth, big cojones and a limited understanding of just how easily things can go wrong. I was very, very lucky to have had an FI who told me that he'd beat me senseless with a broken rudder if I ever so much as thought about taking any passenger anywhere under any circumstances until I'd got a good few more hours, learned the hard way that things can go t*ts up, and added at the very least some instrument and night instruction. Happily, I went on to do a lot more than that. Equally happily, the way things have gone and are going, I can now stick to gardening and painting the living room. Again.
With regard to the third point, having been out of the loop to a degree, I am as amazed as others to learn about what seems to be blatant abuse of the system. I am unfortunately a little less surprised to see just how little is being done about it. As always, I am afraid, those who play a straight bat are the ones who pay and ironically, who recreive the most attention from the authorities. More and tighter legislation? Of course, but someone has to enforce it. We also have to realise that not everyone plays by the book. You cannot blame the passengers in any way, shape or form here. Almost anyone getting on any aircraft will have near zero idea about the necessary qualifications, and as someone said earlier, to the average person, 70 hours sounds like a lot.
Obviously (to us anyway), something needs to be done. Unfortunately, I fear it may take the sort of event none of us want to see, before someone in a position of authority wakes up to what is happening out there in the real world. I won't hold my breath.
With regard to the second, the actual direct end cause of the accident is as yet uncertain. However, there seems little doubt that at least two people should never have been in that situation in the first place. As someone posted earlier, single-engine flying is not inherently unsafe, nor is a single-engine flight at night or over water. But add them all together, and the risk factor increases. Add in icing conditions and the risk factor goes up more. Add in a (potential) lack of pilot experience of the combination of aircraft type and the conditions, and it goes off the scale. We will never know the reasons for some of the decisions that were made, but most of us know the pressure some people can exert and not everyone finds it easy to say no. This especially if you put yourself in the position of someone who possibly should not really have been where they were and didn't have the financial means to stay there. There are very few here who have had years sitting at the pointy end who haven't at some time been pressured in one way or another. There are times it takes a lot to say no, and as other incidents have unfortunately shown, there are times people have failed to say no to the person sitting next to them, and have paid the ultimate price.
Like a lot of others here, I started off longer ago than I care to remember, with a combination of a freshly-minted PPL, youth, big cojones and a limited understanding of just how easily things can go wrong. I was very, very lucky to have had an FI who told me that he'd beat me senseless with a broken rudder if I ever so much as thought about taking any passenger anywhere under any circumstances until I'd got a good few more hours, learned the hard way that things can go t*ts up, and added at the very least some instrument and night instruction. Happily, I went on to do a lot more than that. Equally happily, the way things have gone and are going, I can now stick to gardening and painting the living room. Again.
With regard to the third point, having been out of the loop to a degree, I am as amazed as others to learn about what seems to be blatant abuse of the system. I am unfortunately a little less surprised to see just how little is being done about it. As always, I am afraid, those who play a straight bat are the ones who pay and ironically, who recreive the most attention from the authorities. More and tighter legislation? Of course, but someone has to enforce it. We also have to realise that not everyone plays by the book. You cannot blame the passengers in any way, shape or form here. Almost anyone getting on any aircraft will have near zero idea about the necessary qualifications, and as someone said earlier, to the average person, 70 hours sounds like a lot.
Obviously (to us anyway), something needs to be done. Unfortunately, I fear it may take the sort of event none of us want to see, before someone in a position of authority wakes up to what is happening out there in the real world. I won't hold my breath.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t know whether Cool Flourish Ltd. owned this aircraft or not because I can’t find the database in the US that others have quoted. However two Chartered Accountants acquiring 2 £1 shares from other nominees leads to the suspicion that they are themselves nominees and are just another layer obscuring the ownership of this company. Is this really the lack of transparency that we want in air transport? Uncovering the ownership of the aircraft would probably give more answers as to what has gone on here. Maybe when we get into charges/financial claims, someone will start talking?
Logic of appropriateness vs logic of consequences. It is a mistake to conclude that an undesirable circumstance is in any way the root cause of the accident. You have to separate out the incidental and resist letting your emotions slant your conclusion on the hard reason for the crash. Why the AAIB is better at this than most of us. As has been said earlier, the crash was not because the pilot only had a PPL. Lots of incompetent pilots with CPL, lots of ultra competent with PPL. Did not happen because it was single-engine, there has been no suggestion or evidence that the engine failed. Did not happen because the aircraft was not flown on an AOC - two B200's crashed here in the same week flown two crew on an AOC. Did not happen because it turned into a popsicle and fell out of the sky from forecast icing. We fly the same aircraft all winter in forecast light icing. Did not happen because it was night instead of day. Now any of those things may have influenced the precipitating incident, or the consequences afterward but at this point we just don't know. As experienced pilots or AOC managers we look at sum of probabilities, and learn to back off when the odds start to stack against us - doesn't mean that anyone that chooses to proceed is automatically doomed. And back to logic of appropriateness and now the demand for greater regulatory enforcement. Same flawed argument that if we can avoid one of the incidental circumstances we can prevent the crash next time. Time travel fantasy.
Last edited by malabo; 10th Feb 2019 at 05:32.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 68
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying in forecast and known icing conditions, at night, followed by a request for descent to a lower altitude before disappearing off the radar strongly suggests that icing was a primary factor in this incident. Night is significant because someone without recent IFR experience is likely to be head down monitoring the instruments and unaware of perhaps rapid ice build up due to the darkness.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Logic of appropriateness vs logic of consequences. It is a mistake to conclude that an undesirable circumstance is in any way the root cause of the accident. You have to separate out the incidental and resist letting your emotions slant your conclusion on the hard reason for the crash.
True, but it is also worth considering the fallout from a crash where the legalities were questionable. For sure, there are two people here who no longer have an opinion on that but there are plenty more who will now suffer the absolute objectivity of insurance companies and a legal system for a number of years. Perhaps, as pilots, we should consider the potential outcomes of our actions, even if we have ended-up in a box, six-foot under. Somewhere in the back of my mind I always have the thought about my wife, children, dog and their inheritance.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cows getting bigger
I know of a number of very good airshow pilots who have given up flying air shows because of the fallout from the Shoreham accident. Their main worry is that should they have an accident their families will end up on the street once the lawyers have finished with them.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...After all the large scale news and media coverage of this story perhaps is sufficient to have raised public awareness of travel by such means of air transport. I`d imagine in the future before some unwitting member of the public is about to board such a flight he/she ... may ask a few pertinent questions about the flight...