"Failed stunt causes crash" ...
Upto The Buffers
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Leeds/Bradford
Age: 48
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think bjorn is on the right lines. You simply can't legislate for everything and you can never legislate against stupidity. If you cross the line between common sense and cotton wool you kill the sport for everyone and stray into the territory of persecuting the many for the idiocy of the few. The many will be good boys/girls, roll over, take one for England and obey the rules, whilst the few for whom said rules were intended will simply ignore them. This makes the rules pointless, negative and ineffective.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Niort
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is already a signifcant body of evidence that shows the biennial review has had NO effect on reducing the accident rate.
It might seem counter intutitive but those are the facts. More and more restrictions have generally reduced competency and currency, they have not reduced the accident rate or its severity.
Until people realise that rules and restrictions are in many cases counter productive nothing will improve. If you simply try and force people to obey 'rules' some will not (for a variety of sometimes valid reasons). If people have knowledge levels which means they understand how and why doing what the rules requires makes sense - then they obey.
Unfortunately we are beset with many laws and rules which bluntly are administive nonsense and jobsworthiness.
Pounding on that they all must be obeyed means the important ones have the same relevance as the nonesense.
It might seem counter intutitive but those are the facts. More and more restrictions have generally reduced competency and currency, they have not reduced the accident rate or its severity.
Until people realise that rules and restrictions are in many cases counter productive nothing will improve. If you simply try and force people to obey 'rules' some will not (for a variety of sometimes valid reasons). If people have knowledge levels which means they understand how and why doing what the rules requires makes sense - then they obey.
Unfortunately we are beset with many laws and rules which bluntly are administive nonsense and jobsworthiness.
Pounding on that they all must be obeyed means the important ones have the same relevance as the nonesense.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: EGTT
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People's responses highlight the problems we have in this country today. The scenario as I see it is: The aircraft owner has a relaxed attitude to licensing and maintenance of his aircraft. He chooses to perform manoeuvres which aren't permitted in the aircraft's state at the time of the accident, which in my opinion is plain reckless.
It should always be the pilot's responsibility to fly safely. It should have been on this man's conscience that he two children's parents in his aircraft, and the last thing he should be doing is non-permitted manoeuvres.
I don't want to live in a world where I cannot be treated as an individual who is intelligent enough to make correct judgements, and instead have to abide to further legislation due to other's stupidity. I don't want my friends and family to think that they need to ask to see my documents before a flight because I'm so careless I don't bother to follow the rules; let alone have them 'vet' me on a website before we go for a Sunday afternoon 'bimble'.
It should always be the pilot's responsibility to fly safely. It should have been on this man's conscience that he two children's parents in his aircraft, and the last thing he should be doing is non-permitted manoeuvres.
I don't want to live in a world where I cannot be treated as an individual who is intelligent enough to make correct judgements, and instead have to abide to further legislation due to other's stupidity. I don't want my friends and family to think that they need to ask to see my documents before a flight because I'm so careless I don't bother to follow the rules; let alone have them 'vet' me on a website before we go for a Sunday afternoon 'bimble'.
Pounding on that they all must be obeyed means the important ones have the same relevance as the nonesense.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cervantes
There is something quintessentially British about this thread. A long litany of complaints and an almost supine ability to accept things the way they are while whining all the while.
We get the laws and the organisations we deserve. I'd like to think UK GA was better than this.
I have drifted from the sad accident that prompted this thread so I'll desist and continue to tilt while paying my subscriptions to AOPA USA.
Oh well, happy flying to us all anyway!
We get the laws and the organisations we deserve. I'd like to think UK GA was better than this.
I have drifted from the sad accident that prompted this thread so I'll desist and continue to tilt while paying my subscriptions to AOPA USA.
Oh well, happy flying to us all anyway!
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am a jolly nice chap and an excellent pilot, and I think that I would take a rather dim view of a bunch of passengers who queued up outside my aircraft to examine my licence, medical, ratings and ARC documents before deeming me worthy of their company. Indeed, I think I might even be in danger of politely requesting them to take a long walk off a short pier and to find a pilot more amenable to their requirements. 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Niort
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Sallyann that is exactly what does happen - have you never broken the speed limit? Never parked in a restricted area? Never pushed your expenses / taxes?
Every day the vast majority of people break laws. They (and I!) justify it because the law bluntly is in many cases and circumstances an ass. The intention is always good, the actuality more often than not has a huge number of unintended consequences.
As with some of the other posters there are pilots I would never fly with, equally if some one wants to fly with me and they start asking for all my paperwork - 'they can sling their hook' and hire someone (who may or may not be legal but that is another matter)
I try and fly anyone who is interested. I try and make flying with me enjoyable (needless to say if will be safe I actually want to live to a ripe old age!). If they want a bit more than straight and level, we'll do that.
Yes it could all go wrong - but I'm comfortable that it will not. doubtless that was the situation in this case - unfortuantely that judgement was very wrong - regulations are unlikely to change that.
Every day the vast majority of people break laws. They (and I!) justify it because the law bluntly is in many cases and circumstances an ass. The intention is always good, the actuality more often than not has a huge number of unintended consequences.
As with some of the other posters there are pilots I would never fly with, equally if some one wants to fly with me and they start asking for all my paperwork - 'they can sling their hook' and hire someone (who may or may not be legal but that is another matter)
I try and fly anyone who is interested. I try and make flying with me enjoyable (needless to say if will be safe I actually want to live to a ripe old age!). If they want a bit more than straight and level, we'll do that.
Yes it could all go wrong - but I'm comfortable that it will not. doubtless that was the situation in this case - unfortuantely that judgement was very wrong - regulations are unlikely to change that.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are two kids who woke up this morning whos lives have been changed completely. They no longer have their parents and will never see them again. Someone a relative or close friend will be burdened with rearing those kids.
Tragic accidents happen in cars and planes but in aircraft they get more media exposure.
I like most here am opposed to yet more regulations and the licencing is NOT an issue other than I hope this pilot has some solid assets for these kids to claim against.
For me the two issues are firstly flying aerobatics in an aircraft loaded in a way that aerobatics are not approved and secondly attempting manouvers which were risking his precious cargo.
Flying is very different as you cannot just hit the brakes and be parked up in seconds as in a car.
In flying passengers are totally reliant on the pilot up front if anything does go wrong.
This is where I have an issue as on the whole flying is easy. it is when things go wrong that the quality of the pilot is revealed.
Its his judgements and abilities which will determine the outcome.
There are fully licenced pilots who I wouldnt trust in the "when things go wrong scenario" and there are those who I know are good pilots. Their hours or ratings dont always indicate which group they lie in.
All we can learn from this is to be reminded what a huge responsibility we have to the people we carry and that when flying bites it bites hard with no mercy.
Pace
Tragic accidents happen in cars and planes but in aircraft they get more media exposure.
I like most here am opposed to yet more regulations and the licencing is NOT an issue other than I hope this pilot has some solid assets for these kids to claim against.
For me the two issues are firstly flying aerobatics in an aircraft loaded in a way that aerobatics are not approved and secondly attempting manouvers which were risking his precious cargo.
Flying is very different as you cannot just hit the brakes and be parked up in seconds as in a car.
In flying passengers are totally reliant on the pilot up front if anything does go wrong.
This is where I have an issue as on the whole flying is easy. it is when things go wrong that the quality of the pilot is revealed.
Its his judgements and abilities which will determine the outcome.
There are fully licenced pilots who I wouldnt trust in the "when things go wrong scenario" and there are those who I know are good pilots. Their hours or ratings dont always indicate which group they lie in.
All we can learn from this is to be reminded what a huge responsibility we have to the people we carry and that when flying bites it bites hard with no mercy.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 9th Oct 2009 at 09:38.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: northants
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While there was no indication of any mechanical problems with the aircraft, I find it amazing the 'paper work' for the maintenance is not complete. According to the report' the maintenance people involved did not follow the BCAR A8-15 guidelines. No wonder we are being hit with the extra costs of Part M, and needing to go through the aircrafts full history. Will the CAA be taking the maintenance people to task for their transgressions?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Niort
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No yakker they will not, see my earlier posting.
One of the major reasons for people not complying with regulations is the potential for them being detected not doing and the likely sanctions.
On both of those counts the CAA consistently fail - be it under Part M or the preceeding regime. Most regulators do, so the CAA are not necessarily particularly incompetent.
The 'learning' on that issue is that all the legal responsibility is upon the owner - not the engineer, his organisation or the CAA. That may not be particularly 'fair' but that is the situation.
One of the major reasons for people not complying with regulations is the potential for them being detected not doing and the likely sanctions.
On both of those counts the CAA consistently fail - be it under Part M or the preceeding regime. Most regulators do, so the CAA are not necessarily particularly incompetent.
The 'learning' on that issue is that all the legal responsibility is upon the owner - not the engineer, his organisation or the CAA. That may not be particularly 'fair' but that is the situation.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason that this aircraft came to grief was not a maintenance or paperwork issue, it was pure "Human Factors".
For some reason the pilot took the aircraft outside of its limmits and as a result him and his passengers paid the price.
It is not paperwork, laws or regulations that prevent accidents, it is common sense and good practice had the latter been used then there would have been no accident.
For some reason the pilot took the aircraft outside of its limmits and as a result him and his passengers paid the price.
It is not paperwork, laws or regulations that prevent accidents, it is common sense and good practice had the latter been used then there would have been no accident.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you - but only a certain amount.
Had this man obeyed the rules, regulations etc. he would not have been involved in this accident.
And THAT is why the rules are there. The rules themselves don't prevent accidents - of course they don't. But their observance can avoid accidents.
What's more, he hasn't paid the price - he's out of it.
The people who are now paying the price is two totally innocent children who are now orphans. And as I said on the other thread, I hope they sue this man's estate for everything that remains.
Had this man obeyed the rules, regulations etc. he would not have been involved in this accident.
And THAT is why the rules are there. The rules themselves don't prevent accidents - of course they don't. But their observance can avoid accidents.
What's more, he hasn't paid the price - he's out of it.
The people who are now paying the price is two totally innocent children who are now orphans. And as I said on the other thread, I hope they sue this man's estate for everything that remains.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Captain Stable
The people who are now paying the price is two totally innocent children who are now orphans. And as I said on the other thread, I hope they sue this man's estate for everything that remains.
If that indeed is the case then the pilots own family/beneficiaries will also suffer with the on going legal action as well as financially.
There just aren't any winners, nor would there have been had he been successful with the wing over.
The whole sorry story makes you wonder what he was about.
All for nothing and so avoidable!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BabyBear, it is a sad fact that there are no winners in a case like this. But perhaps, just perhaps, if people thought that fooling around in an aircraft, flying uninsured, "forgetting" to renew your medical might result in your dependants being left penniless, fewer people might do idiotic stunts like this.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Captain Stable
But perhaps, just perhaps, if people thought that fooling around in an aircraft, flying uninsured, "forgetting" to renew your medical might result in your dependants being left penniless, fewer people might do idiotic stunts like this.
For me the saddest thing is that he had others in the aircraft.
Now, had he been alone it would have been a whole different set of circumstances, but then again, he probably wouldn't have been trying to show off!
such is life...
People have been and will continue to be killed by the recklessness of others.
These two newly orphaned children aren't the first orphans, nor with they be the last.
Bureacracy, regulations and legislation are easily created, but rarely destroyed.
Be careful what you wish for!
Caveat emptor - or let the flyer beware!
These two newly orphaned children aren't the first orphans, nor with they be the last.
Bureacracy, regulations and legislation are easily created, but rarely destroyed.
Be careful what you wish for!
Caveat emptor - or let the flyer beware!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: london
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt very much whether more regulation would have protected the hapless victims of this "pilot" but I'm interested to know more about the body of evidence showing no benefit from the biennial instruction rule- I've wondered about that. I've had very useful coaching from the instructor I normally use but wonder if that's universal.
I know it goes against the grain but maybe we should be a bit more prepared to speak up when we're worried about other pilots in extreme cases even to the CAA. Apart from anything else the antics of an irresponsible few could screw things up completely for the rest of us very quickly and maybe we also have a common duty towards the non-pilots who enter our world
Passengers are incredibly vulnerable and all the online documentation in the world wouldn't protect them because they'd never read it. Nor would large notices telling them they ought to check the status of the pilot as they'll "know" he's a good pilot because they know him. They also tend to confuse confidence/arrogance with ability and probably also assume that we operate in an environment where someone like this perpetrator simply wouldn't be allowed to fly.
Reading this report I did wonder how he managed to get a CofE signed off without a current medical and though it's probably not causal in this accident there did seem to be a lot of general casualness in the whole environment.
I know it goes against the grain but maybe we should be a bit more prepared to speak up when we're worried about other pilots in extreme cases even to the CAA. Apart from anything else the antics of an irresponsible few could screw things up completely for the rest of us very quickly and maybe we also have a common duty towards the non-pilots who enter our world
Passengers are incredibly vulnerable and all the online documentation in the world wouldn't protect them because they'd never read it. Nor would large notices telling them they ought to check the status of the pilot as they'll "know" he's a good pilot because they know him. They also tend to confuse confidence/arrogance with ability and probably also assume that we operate in an environment where someone like this perpetrator simply wouldn't be allowed to fly.
Reading this report I did wonder how he managed to get a CofE signed off without a current medical and though it's probably not causal in this accident there did seem to be a lot of general casualness in the whole environment.
Last edited by BIGJ91; 9th Oct 2009 at 23:32.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm interested to know more about the body of evidence showing no benefit from the biennial instruction rule-
All this sea of unnecessary regulation has brought us, is more expense , inconvenience, and hassle guaranteed to strangle what is left of GA to death, deter new entrants, and further increase the 75% of pilots who let their (new 5 yearly taxed ) licenses lapse at the first renewal. All of this just to create and maintain jobs and income for the boys and bureaucrats who invent it.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He chooses to perform manoeuvres which aren't permitted in the aircraft's state at the time of the accident,
Regarding paperwork - it is relatively easy to get in a mix and end up being illegal accidentally (though not unsafe). A few years ago this happened to us, one group member did the 50hr but didn't sign the logbooks to do whatever he was meant to do. The 50 hr had been done, but paperwork wise we were illegal for a while and effectively flying with no CofA - but that doesn't mean the aircraft was unsafe.
With this new maintenance regime it is very easy to find youself in a pickle unless you let your maintenance organisation take care of ALL maintenance....then make sure you don't choose one that falisfies logbooks.....
The FAA reduced requirements for the IR specifically to encourage people to do it. The results were an improvement in safety.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know what "stunt" he did?