Blackpool 3/2/07

[bookworm]

Fair enough VFE. But do you think that a flight piloted by someone out of legal currency, intending to take off over legal max weight, well beyond legal licence privileges, into a 200 ft ceiling is going to say anything other than "Roger" in response to such a warning?

[VFE]

One must admit, you have a fair point there Bookworm me ole... guess it would only help satisfy a conscience or two when you get cases like this.

VFE.

[PPRuNe Radar]

When is comes to IFR minima (nevermind VFR!) the UK AIP states that, for non-public transport flights, the minimum weather conditions for take-off should never be less than 600ft cloud base (recommended) and 1'800 metres in-flight visibility (mandatory).

It is all to do with the chances of a successful landing following EFATO. The definitions of 'shall' and 'should' are covered by a PPL student studying for their Air Law exam therefore should require no explanation here.

So, where might ATC fit into this when they pass take-off clearences to pilots of non-public transport single-engined aircraft on days when the weather is clearly below the above minima? Maybe some recommended practices, if not already in existance, might be of use in the future? Just a suggestion.

But irrelevant to the accident flight, unless the weather at their 2nd departure airfield was as bad as the limits above. When it arrived at Blackpool it was an arrival and not a departure. Different minima are on the approach charts for arrivals. The minima can only be determined by the pilot and only he can determine whether he has to carry out a missed approach or continue the approach and land.

[VFE]

Very true PPrRadar, the departure was not directly connected to the return flight. I was kinda jumping the gun in supposing that had they not got airbourne from Blackpool then the fateful return flight would not have occured - you can't have a return leg without the initial departure. I understand your point tho.

VFE.

[PPRuNe Radar]

Your point is kind of like the custom in some Arabic States where a Westerner will be blamed for a crash in a taxi and be liable for any costs, because if the Westerner had not hired it, the crash would not have occurred !!

[VFE]

Yes you could look at it like that PPrRadar, however, my point in raising this originally was not to attribute any blame following an accident, but merely to enquire whether or not an ATC prompted "check take-off minima" along the lines of "check 3 greens" would be possible prior to SEP departures in known bad weather conditions? I would imagine airports have a vested interest in not seeing SEP's plough into neighbouring housing estates as a result of EFATO below recommended take off minima? Yes it is the PIC responsibility but clearly, following this accident, people are still doing it and sadly for GA, the general public are becoming wise to it too these days.

VFE.

[Knight Paladin]

Either way - they got airborne from a seriously clagged in airfield intending to return to that airfield the same day, when the weather was forecast to remain poor. And not only that, but they did so without fuel reserves to reach a suitable diversion. To put it bluntly, it was horrendously bad planning. Even in a suitably equipped aircraft, with a suitably rated (not just an IMC) pilot, a 200ft cloudbase is right on the limit for light aircraft operation. At the very least you should carry enough fuel to reach an airfield with better forecast weather. Carrying fuel for a suitable diversion is one of the absolute basics in aviation, and for failing to respect that these two individuals paid the ultimate price.

To be perfectly honest, I feel that all this discussion of who is to blame is missing the point. Everyone concerned in the whole sorry saga should have been in no doubt that the decision to go was very, very wrong - all are culpable. In my book even someone witnessing the planning would have had a moral obligation to voice their concerns.

[long final]

My argument with Bose. Semantics maybe, but I believe culpable to be true. Had an illegal flight (allegedly – again!) not been endorsed by the CFI they would never have been in the position to make the bad error judgements they did. They are to blame, but I still do not believe totally in a moral sense. Maybe a tenuous argument, I guess the legal action will make its own conclusions.

[DFC]

ATC can not spend time checking every pilot's qualifications.

An IR holder can depart from Blackpool perfectly legally VFR in a PA28 with Overcast 200 and 1500m visibility and provided that they remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface with the 1500m visibility they remain legal in Class G airspace.

Perhaps a tightening of VMC criteria in the vicinity of aerodromes and a requirement for the pilot to record VFR or IFR as part of the booking out procedure would help.

---------

If Joe walks into a flying club and explains that he is out of currency and needs a check flight. The response is - yes no problem Bob here will fly with you. How many people will question Bob's qualifications? Most Bob's would be insulted if the average Joe looking for a checkout asked to see their licence, medical and logbook before flying. If the club propose Bob then the club has the responsibility to sensure that Bob is fit for purpose.

It was asked how this person would regain currency on such an outing. Well such outings are very common in cases of lack of currency - 1 landing away and on arrival back at base, a touch and go followed by a full stop.

-----------

It always has amazed me how many CFIs/ clubs cry foul at the few airports that refuse to honour the no landing fee for weather diversion scheme.

However, take advantage of that free landing fee at some far away field and do not expect the Club to do anything other than a) Charge you some daily rate for loss of use of the aircraft while you wait for suitable weather or b) charge you the cost of recovering the aircraft. For many the free landing fee is spent several times over in club fees that will never be waived.

-----------

Radar,

Your quote from the ANO is very appropriate. More appropriate is the requirement that a VFR flight shall not depart unless the actual and forecast weather indicates that the VFR flight can be completed safely.

Far too many VFR flights end up being part VFR and part IFR and until this practice is more frowned upon rather than encouraged people will have scant regard for safe operating practice.

The reason why a VFR flight can not depart unless it is VMC to destination is that there is no requirement for a VFR flight to have an alternate. Thus in this case taking the flight as being a VFR flight there was no requirment for an alternate. However, the flight could not depart because without doubt at least part of it was going to be IFR in IMC.

In terms of fuel, the flight being a VFR one should have arrived over Blackpool with a minimum of 45 minutes flight time at holding (best endurance) power. Thus the aircraft should have been able to divert some 45 minutes flying time from Blackpool.

However, since the flight could not have departed Exeter on a VFR flight to Blackpool (it would have to have been an IFR or an "Z" flight -VFR then IFR) one has to not simply question the planning but once again that like the first flight which was obvously an IFR flight from the start that the second flight was either an IFR or VFR to IFR flight from the very start.

--------

As an aside, those that advocate the changing of PIC mid-flight should read and understand how the AAIB will establish PIC after an accident.

However, saying that all the AAIB's thinking can also be applie to a training flight does not work because for a legal training flight, the instructor would be qualified and would be operating as part of an FTO or an RTF.

I do not think that was the case here.

Regards,

DFC

[bookworm]

More appropriate is the requirement that a VFR flight shall not depart unless the actual and forecast weather indicates that the VFR flight can be completed safely.

And where precisely would I find this requirement, DFC?

There is a requirement in Art 52 that the commander "take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off ... that the flight can safely be made," but that makes no distinction between VFR and IFR. Otherwise, provided an alternate ("an aerodrome to which an aircraft may proceed when it becomes either impossible or inadvisable to proceed to or to land at the aerodrome of intended landing") is available, there is no such restriction on a VFR departure.

[boy entrant]

Not wanting to condone this CFIs behaviour (he has to live with his conscience),

two months after the accident his father received an invoice for £320 from the FTO for the ill fated trip there is also a claim on Andy's estate for £20,000 for the loss of G-BBBKs' hull as it was not insured

[mad_jock]

If true.

I was undecided about this one after reading the accident report and have experenced some of the bullying that some CFI's think is acceptable.

As far as I am concerned now I hope the current legal enquiry hang the bastard out to dry. And even if the legal teams manage to hang everything on those who arn't there to defend themselves. A good public airing should let folk know what sort of person they are dealing with.

And I think the CFI is perfectly happy with his consciencene if he has the cheak to issue a invoice for the trip.

[corsair]

two months after the accident his father received an invoice for £320 from the FTO for the ill fated trip there is also a claim on Andy's estate for £20,000 for the loss of G-BBBKs' hull as it was not insured

Well that takes the biscuit. Why am I not surprised? You have to wonder at the mentality of people who sit down and issue an invoice like that. Reminds me of the time a fireman was docked pay because he didn't finish his shift. Or at least his widow was because of course he had died in a fire during that shift.

[Supersport]

two months after the accident his father received an invoice for £320 from the FTO for the ill fated trip there is also a claim on Andy's estate for £20,000 for the loss of G-BBBKs' hull as it was not insured

If that is infact true... it beggars belief. I mean jeez, talk about kicking someone when they are way way down. Absolutely ****** disgusting.

Initially, from reading the AAIB report and from talking to people at Blackpool I did feel like the CFI was getting a slightly heavy slap, people keep mentioning his conscience, it is now my opinion that he really doesn't have one if the above statement is true. Hang the bastard out to dry indeed.

[mad_jock]

Unfortunately the docking of ones pay after death or accident has a long established history. I believe they were going to try it on after Piper Alpha.

Thankfully the Aberdeen oxy exec's realised the chances of them making it to the supermarket and back without some toolpusher breaking thier legs was pretty slim.

I discovered it while reading about the titianic. All pay was stopped from the moment she sank.

[vanHorck]

And what if the CFI's legal advisers strongly recommended the CFI to issue both the invoice as well as the claim for the hull simply because not doing so could constitute an acceptance of guilt?

It may not be nice if these things happen, but this does not mean somebody does not have a morality.

Once a tragedy like this happens the lawyers call the shots.

I have heard on this forum that this CFI has been condemned by the CAA (and i assume subsequently paid his dues for that?), that he was bad because he let his own plane crash into a bowser during a rental and everything in between....

It is obvious this man is disliked by the Blackpool flying community (or part of it). This does not make that person (whom I don't know) a criminal being hung out to dry even before the coroner's verdict .

I ve also heard the story that he suffers from bad luck and poor management skills (perhaps combined with a love for flying?) combined and that this has resulted in his bad name.

Lets try to be level headed about this and await whatever new FACTS will emerge during the coroner's hearings and concentrate for now on what we can learn from this tragedy

[gasax]

"And what if the CFI's legal advisers strongly recommended the CFI to issue both the invoice as well as the claim for the hull simply because not doing so could constitute an acceptance of guilt?

It may not be nice if these things happen, but this does not mean somebody does not have a morality."

Well that I think is the view of a weak and feeble person who actually has no morality! At the end of the day that sort of advice come from risk adverse people who are desperately trying to cover their arses. Eiterh you have a sense of morality - and will declare it and act in accordance with it - or you will not - and you';; try and hide behind 'advice'.

I watched and read all of these related threads and find the wole situation very sad. I'm quite long in the tooth and have a reasonable level of experience. The pilot had neither of those and I've put myself in the same situation as him and to be honest I could have been in at least half the trouble he was - if not more.

But ~I was never in the position of a CFI pushing me into making stupid decisions when I did not know much better. But at one point I did have a CFI showing me how to do circuits at an unlicenced airstrip (strangely it was before I took my air law exam...............). Unfortunately I suspect that many illegal practices are quite common in flying clubs that scratch a living.

But back to the point - you stand and fall by your personal reputation - advice is just that - if you are naturally a fair and decent person that will shine through your actions, if you are not................

[bjornhall]

concentrate for now on what we can learn from this tragedy

Excellent idea. Answer: Nothing whatsoever. It is already well understood how to avoid accidents like this one. Namely, to fly as we are taught to fly. If you get your PPL, and learn absolutely nothing afterwards, you will not have this type of accident.

Those in this thread and elsewhere who try to "put part of the blame" on someone other than the PIC (why in all the world does anyone have to be blamed???), argue that it was outside influences that made the pilot perform this flight. "He did not make the decisions; someone else made them for him." As a solution to this it is suggested, bizarrely, that further outside influences are required; a new PPL holder should not make any and all decisions regarding the flight, but somebody else (CFI etc) should make part of them for him. "He should be better supervised".

Yet had this pilot been entirely unsupervised, the accident would not have happened. When unsupervised low-hour PPLs are left to their own devises and decision making skills, some of them might occasionally run off the far end at Nethertorpe. But they don't launch VFR into a 200 ft overcast, unless they unlearn part of their PPL training, or are under the impression that they are not responsible for their actions.

Even the lowest level of supervision will risk similar effects. "The CFI didn't stop me, so it must be ok to fly today." Guidance, advice when asked for (or unsolicited in extreme cases), education and training made available; all great! Rules and regulations (both official and club rules; how about proper planning minima?) work well, since it is the PIC who determines whether or not conditions are inside the rules, thus avoiding the "I wasn't stopped so its fine"-trap. But supervision, in the GA/PPL world, is highly undesireable and downright dangerous.

Unless one would want to take the supervision to the level used in airliner or military operations. That is entirely impractical for the GA world; thank gods!

[DFC]

There is a requirement in Art 52 that the commander "take all reasonable steps to satisfy himself before the aircraft takes off ... that the flight can safely be made," but that makes no distinction between VFR and IFR. Otherwise, provided an alternate ("an aerodrome to which an aircraft may proceed when it becomes either impossible or inadvisable to proceed to or to land at the aerodrome of intended landing") is available, there is no such restriction on a VFR departure.

It does not have to make a distinction between VFR and IFR since it is obvious.

You can not depart on a VFR flight from A to B unless the actual and forecast weather indicate that the flight can be made VFR.

You can not depart on a VFR flight from A to B when the actual and forecast weather at B is less than VMC even if you have a VMC alternate C. What you are doing in that case is departing VFR from A to C with the posibility of changing the destination later to B if the weather improves.

You can however depart on a flight that is planned to be VFR first and then IFR later or the other way round if the IMC bity is at the departure end. You can even plan to be VFR then IFR and then VFR again.

Or of course you can plan IFR for the whole flight.

Too many pilots depart on what they call VFR flights knowing full well that at some stage they will probably have to fly IFR.

If at the planning stage you can not show that the flight will be VFR to destination then quite simply it will not be a VFR flight to that destination. How hard is that for the PPL to understand.

Regards,

DFC

PS as well as the ANO you should check the ICAO annex and UK AIP (for differences).

[long final]

bjornhall,

I hope to hell you never make a bad decision in your future flying days. I think you should take time out with your holier than thou attitude. You have a lot to learn.