DA42 TwinStar crashes at Lands End, (Merged)

[LH2]

The whole business of operating from grass is slightly dodgy. The actual takeoff performance can be dramatically different from anything that might have been documented in the POH

Agreed. A lot of the time it comes down to experience, local knowledge (from self or from reputable pilots familiar with the field), and that sixth sense which tells you it might not be such a great idea to attempt a take off right there and then (which is why the first question you ask yourself when landing on marginal sites is "is a take off possible?")

Now, a British >1000hr MEP-rated (ex-?)PPL is bound to be a regular here. So which one of you was it?

[Mikehotel152]

It was him, him, him...




[The stoning scene from Life of Brian]

[IO540]

Gethomeitis is a very, very dangerous disease.

Gethomeitis does not exist. All you have to play with is performance data, weather data, pilot expertise / skills. This pilot messed up on the first one.

Gethomeitis is a term favoured by the training establishment to excuse p*ss poor training, strictly to the syllabus but useless for going somewhere for real, and favoured by the regulators who are not willing or able to do anything about this.

Sure, the pilot was under pressure to get out of Lands End. I would be, too Probably the most exciting thing in that part of the UK are the crowds of pregnant 15 year old girls pushing prams.

This kind of thing is why I fly to grass only if somebody well familiar with IFR planes tells me it's a "good surface" and it has not rained for some days. And it must be 800m+ for me. Panshanger is fine. I also phone the place first and check they will have hard parking. I once got stuck in mud at Southend and a van could not move it; they had to get a fire crew with a 4x4. Never again.....

[S-Works]

Now, a British >1000hr MEP-rated (ex-?)PPL is bound to be a regular here. So which one of you was it?

I could spill the beans, but it would take the fun out of it......

[Say again s l o w l y]

Not sure I agree with that IO. When someone has over 1000hrs and has been out of the training system for a long time, the industry can take absolutely NO responsibility for one persons laziness or lack of nouse.

The responsibility is for a pilot to keep up there skills and to make the correct decisions. An FI can force people when they are in their hands, but we can't do anything about someone being a tit and ignoring all the training that they recieved in the first place.

Are all car drivers as cautious as they were when they first passed? Do they follow every rule to the letter? Do they hell. Why should PPL's be any different?

Gethomeitis is a real disease and a chuffing dangerous one. I know what I'm doing (usually) and it's tempted me on occasion.

[Radar]

bose-x

It does bring to mind the rather amusing stereotype of the Irish.....

Do elaborate ... or did I miss something earlier in the thread?

[liam548]

what kind of "weather mapping system" might he have been using in the aircraft? Is it likely to be a DA42 standard fit item?

[Fuji Abound]

I could spill the beans, but it would take the fun out of it

Heeinz.

I dont think you should.

[IO540]

Not sure I agree with that IO. When someone has over 1000hrs and has been out of the training system for a long time, the industry can take absolutely NO responsibility for one persons laziness or lack of nouse.

That I agree with to a large degree; however there is a culture of sloppiness in GA and the training system is what sets the culture up in the first place, and maintains it through meaningless check flights thereafter. There are multi-thousand hour pilots who cannot read weather, for example, and they stay like it because the two yearly instructor check flight (obviously done with the most friendly instructor you can find - I do the same) is basically ineffective. In defence of this, many pilots would say that why should they know about this stuff when they only ever fly 20 miles down the road. It's a fair point, until one looks at the license privileges which are worldwide VFR.

Not far from where my plane lives, somebody rented a PA28, started it up with the towbar attached, took a 1" x 1" chunk out of the prop, chucked the towbar away around the corner, went for a flight, said nothing. To "us" this may seem utter folly but prop strikes are not taught in the PPL and (logically) my lawn mower doesn't need to be looked at when I hit a rock with it so why should a plane be any different?

I don't know this pilot so have no idea of his experience, but clearly he had no experience of the type versus poor-surface performance. Possibly, also, he was not the owner of the plane, and that makes a huge difference to "attitude to grass" etc.

[S-Works]

Quote:
It does bring to mind the rather amusing stereotype of the Irish.....

Do elaborate ... or did I miss something earlier in the thread?

The pilot of said aircraft is a friend of mine.

Don't worry I was not casting dispersions on the Irish, they are a fine nation.

It just happens that this particular Irishman could fit certain stereotypes!

[Say again s l o w l y]

IO, you don't get taught how to breathe, but most of us manage it ourselves.

It would be lovely if the training allowed hours of training on short strips and other more challenging things, but the PPL is just a basic licence. It isn't to a particularily high level on any area.

Afterwards though, there are plenty of courses around for farm strip, taildragger, IMC etc.

Schools would absolutely love it if the syllabus was expanded to include these things in the basic PPL, however, that isn't necessary and PPL's themselves are the ones that drive the cost and push for the course to be done and dusted as quickly as possible.

A PPL is a licence to learn, nothing more. You can't overload people with too much at the start. Teaching more advanced stuff is totally wasted for someone who's only just able to fly from one major airfield to another.

I agree that it would be nice if student PPL's were made to do at least 100hrs and that it brought in more challenging stuff, but that won't happen.

The other major problem (certainly up here) is that you aren't allowed to take students into many short grass strips as they aren't licenced. Whilst I do occasionally, it's not an everyday occurance as the student can't log the time and it is ever so slightly dodgy legally.

It would need a complete rip up of the current system. I do agree that it isn't anywhere near as good as it could be, the chances of the CAA ripping it all back and starting again are nil.

[Pace]

10540

Tend to agree with Say again slowly.

I do not feel this accident (not sure you can even call it an accident) had anything to do with training or lack of.

It was a series of descisions which were a flagrant disregard for common sense or infact any sense with an inevitable outcome.

Its a bit like driving across a railway line crossing. You are taught to stop when the red lights show and the barriers come down. Ignore those, drive round the barriers with a train bearing down on you and get hit??? what sort of training can stop that?

Pace

[englishal]

This chap was a complete pillock! I'd have not even tried in wet conditions, but assuming I had, I'd have given up after being towed by the AFS first time!

[airborne_artist]

What was ATC's role in all this? Did they at any time give advice or suggestions which the pilot might have construed in an-over positive light?

You would imagine they were hiding behind the sofa well before the end of the show.

[Radar]

Thanks for the clarification bose, it was half past flippin' early when I posted this morning ..... possibly a tad sensitive

airborne_artist

ATC don't really have a role as such. I would hazard a guess that it is a FIS service offered and not ATC (but I stand to be corrected). However regardless of whether it it was a FISO or ATCO on duty, it is not their place to, nor do they have the power to, block the action of the pilot, no matter how ill advised said action appears to be. It is possible that given the state of the manoeuvering area, closure of the field would be considered. Also not a decision taken by ATC.

If training fails to kick in, one would hope that cop-on and common sense would. Obviously not in this case.

[airborne_artist]

Radar - fully aware of the role and powers of the FISO/ATCO, but you could imagine such a person or the airfield manager attempting to have a "quiet chat" with a pilot who had already exhibited a significant lack of judgement well before he set off on his last t/o run.

[Radar]

airborne

Point taken, absolutely. Given the apparent absence of any rational thought in the chain of events as they unfolded, I'm pretty sure the outcome would remain pretty much unchanged. Intervention or not.