arj1 wrote:
Really bad news. Now every aviation-related person would say “no comment” to the AAIB in case of an accident or incident. :(
That is nothing new. It has been like this for ages in reality. Annex 13 has been dead for years in most countries who do not annonymize the reports to the extent that neither registration nor any names are included.
And while e.g. the NTSB also still maintains that their reports are for safety only, their dockets are widely open to the extent where verbatim interviews can be read by everyone who cares.
In the end, Annex 13 is to be upheld by courts by dismissing TSB reports as evidence based on Annex 13, but that has not happened in a while.
So unfortunately, yes, taking “the 5th” is the course of action these days when it comes talking to TSB personel despite the fact that this means a lot of accidents will not be properly investigated.
Graham wrote:
The AAIB is independent of the CAA and does very good work
IMHO they are one of the better TSB’s still. Lots of dedicated folks whose only interest really lies in improving flight safety. Quite some others have long gone down the slippery path of trying to be regulators or worse legislators.
Do we know anything about the pilot(s), i.e. ratings, hours etc. I think that is useful accident information to learn from and which can inform safe practices/sensible precautions in operating GA flights, notwithstanding one can end up in precarious weather suddenly despite studying it beforehand.
@JamiesAviation.com We don’t have that information. It typically doesn’t come out until an accident report is published, unless someone close to the operation decides to go public with it.
JamiesAviation.com is a curious participant… promoting a website.
I suppose that’s right Graham. Although, sometimes the identities are revealed by the press and one can then look-up (not in a morbid way, but more out of academic/professional curiosity to try and be as safe as can be reasonable).
In the case of a pilot (Glenn DeVries) who accompanied Jeff Bezos (and William Shatner) in his orbit around the earth to be killed tragically a few weeks later with his instructor in a Cessna 172, as he was famous, their identities were revealed. It made it even more puzzling and I am still scratching my head as to understanding what went wrong other than an unrecoverable stall/spin. De Vries was a billionaire but bought himself a sensible, modest aircraft, got his PPL in 2016 and regularly flew with his instructor to keep current and improve his skills, so it wasn’t a case of recklessness as one often reads about, particularly in the US. This was a very conscientious pilot and a very experienced instructor.
Jamie
Maybe worth visiting Wellsbourne clubhouse?
There are many meaningless accidents.
In this case, I reckon that the pilot just didn’t know that flying into a TCU, prob99 already at a temperature below 0C, is going to be – at best – rough as hell.
They also didn’t appear to slow down for the crossing. The initial descent – probably trying to go underneath and realising they will get busted for that 1500ft DA – was a cruise descent; same speed as before. Then a drop in speed for the climb, and then returning to cruise speed once they levelled off at ~7k, again realising they will get busted for infringing the LTMA.
If penetration is unavoidable, one is supposed to slow down to Va and preferably a lot slower.
FR24 / FA speed readout is unreliable due to the way it is calculated, but the overall data seems clear.
MattL wrote:
Protected materials which are part of AAIB investigations – eg pilot statements, CVR transcripts, in cockpit video – are still inadmissible as has most recently been tested with Shoreham and the coroners requests being turned by down by High Court
@MattL there is probably a technical difference – whether it matters much I don’t know – between something being inadmissible in court and access to certain material not being granted.
In the former case one party comes along waving some material and the court tells them it cannot be used in evidence. In the latter one party asks a court to force disclosure of material they don’t have so that they can use it and the court declines to do so – presumably leaving alone the question of whether it would be admissible if it were somehow obtained.
AFAIU, the concept of material being inadmissible in principle as evidence in a court of law, is rather specific to the US/UK legal systems. In most jurisdictions it is up to the courts themselves to decide what evidence they will accept.
In this case, I reckon that the pilot just didn’t know that flying into a TCU, prob99 already at a temperature below 0C, is going to be – at best – rough as hell.
That or they didn’t see it. The temptation on Saturday was to fly just in the top of the SC layer sat around 4000-4500ft and trade forward visibility for a little extra altitude, rather than go under, and so not see the embedded CB. As I recall, the stuff you would need to have learnt to know why getting as much height as possible over the water isn’t always the best option (which has been mentioned in this thread), you only learn in the IR TK and above.
