Mooney_Driver wrote:
True. So the question arises if we need to modify the Ppl syllabus or restrict the privileges of a conventional Ppl holder to local flights in CAVOK until he has passed a number of hours and then add a rating for being allowed to actually travel.
Oh puleeeze. We are not losing people to wx, we are losing people to stupidity. Sorry, there really is no other word for that. They must have known the wx at destination, yet decided to launch with marginal fuel reserves (according to people here who are familiar with the type) into wx that was clearly IMC. You don’t need a doctorate in advanced metereology to look at a METAR or TAF. This is totally basic stuff, no fancy pansy websites required. In addition to that, you can always ask ATC for a wx update. Depending on controller workload this may take a few minutes to come, but it’s always there. And yes, I have used that numerous times in Spain.
It is clear that flight planning and Meteo is insufficient the way it is taught. There is nothing in the syllabus that I know of which prepares a new PPL for trips like the ones we are mostly talking about here.
Well, I don’t know about Europe, but at least when I did my license (about 20 years ago right here in L.A.) flight planning for x-country flight was very much part of the syllabus and in any case you had to do solo x-country and night x-country. It was also an integral part of the flight test for the PPL. In fact, the first part of the practical test was to plan a x-country flight (to Las Vegas in my case) and explain to the examiner where to get the wx info from, how to navigate the various restricted airspaces (many between these two points!) and then go through the whole routine of getting flight following, tracking a VOR inbound / outbound etc. once in the air. Only after about 20 or 30 minutes en route would the examiner break off the flight and proceed with the ‘normal’ examination (stalls, ground reference maneuvers, unusual attitudes, etc, etc).
All three pilots were from my club. I knew one of them quite well, he was in the board of our club and an FI and usually very careful when it came to go/no-go decisions due to weather. He was also the one who did my first check-out after I joined the club. He was a great guy and will be missed by many for sure.
How do we know they didn’t fly IFR? At least one of them had an IR (AFAIK also current) and doesn’t the cruise altitude rather speak for IFR? And what about the rumour about engine trouble, is this from a valid source?
172driver wrote:
In fact, the first part of the practical test was to plan a x-country flight (to Las Vegas in my case) and explain to the examiner where to get the wx info from, how to navigate the various restricted airspaces (many between these two points!) and then go through the whole routine of getting flight following, tracking a VOR inbound / outbound etc. once in the air. Only after about 20 or 30 minutes en route would the examiner break off the flight and proceed with the ‘normal’ examination (stalls, ground reference maneuvers, unusual attitudes, etc, etc).
Generally the planned flight is broken off by the Private Certificate examiner saying you have to go to an alternate, then you give him your plan for doing so and turn toward it. Then when he’s satisfied that you’d probably get there, he calls that off too, and you go about the rest of the flight. At least that was my experience 
I find the notion of solving people problems through ever more restrictive regulation and additional certificates as absurd as you do. The end result is more people behaving incompetently due to road blocks preventing the accumulation of experience, instead of just a few behaving incompetently due to lack of judgement… or just plain bad luck. The not entirely false stereotype is that its a Germanic thing, but I think its common among some people everywhere. In any case, its a road to nowhere.
US private pilot training is much more rigorous (I have the US PPL CPL and IR) although one could argue it works well in the unified US airspace / ATC system, and except for the basic flying skills which are more fully covered, the advantage in Europe is relatively minimal.
Not sure I would try asking Spanish ATC for wx ahead, hanging as they often are by a thin thread on the edge of their ELP
It’s a good point it could have been IFR, in the ~FL120 portion. Somebody with Eurocontrol access could check that. But they would have got into trouble near the bad wx; FL120 would have been no good. Maybe they tried to go underneath it?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Food for thought but I am sure that anyone suggesting these things will be accused of ruining GA… So it is up to those who wish to fly responsibly to teach themselfs?
At the end of the day, are you your brother’s keeper? The truth is that each of us, by and large, knows what we are getting into and, unfortunately, you can’t legislate for stupidity. Yes, it may be different for passengers but at the end of the day, they can read on the internet and make an informed decision, if they so desire. But let’s talk statistics, shall we?
How many people are killed in General Aviation accidents each year. In the US, in 2017, the fatalities were 347. But have a guess how many people die in the US simply by falling out of bed? More than 400. What’s your proposal for stopping those deaths? Going to introduce legislation on that? Ban beds until you have demonstrated you can get up without falling? Or how about autoerotic asphyxiation? That kills double the number of people killed in GA accidents.
People know that putting a pair of tights over their head, stuffing an orange in their mouth and tightening a ligament around their neck whilst censored is going to be a pretty embarrassing find for your relatives when they read the details in the post mortem, but it still doesn’t stop 600 doing it every year……
Peter wrote:
Not sure I would try asking Spanish ATC for wx ahead, hanging as they often are by a thin thread on the edge of their ELP
Your aversion to Spanish controllers (and Spain in general) is well known, @Peter, I have mostly found the enroute / center controllers to be good and helpful. I certainly have used their services to get wx ahead numerous times. Also, there will always be CAT on a center frequency and you can ask these guys also, they tend to be terminally bored up there anyway and often already have the wx. Done that as well. There really is plenty of opportunity to get a picture of the wx ahead. As an aside, IME the – very real – ELP issue in Spain is more of a problem with tower and sometimes approach controllers. The enroute guys n’ gals were generally fine.
Silvaire wrote:
Generally the planned flight is broken off by the Private Certificate examiner saying you have to go to an alternate, then you give him your plan for doing so and turn toward it. Then when he’s satisfied that you’d probably get there, he calls that off too, and you go about the rest of the flight
That may well have been the case during my checkride as well, don’t recall that (of course I had to plan for an alternate!) – it’s been a while.
Steve6443 wrote:
People know that putting a pair of tights over their head, stuffing an orange in their mouth and tightening a ligament around their neck whilst censored is going to be a pretty embarrassing find for your relatives when they read the details in the post mortem, but it still doesn’t stop 600 doing it every year……
@Peter: we REALLY need a LIKE button here !! 
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Seeing as they took off at 10.18 they should have had the 2nd one issued at 0800z
I rather suspect they didn’t and were using the 0200z TAF. If they took off at 10:18, then at 10:00 they were likely climbing into plane, closing it up, starting and warming up the engine, runup, etc. While one could claim that they should have obtained the 08:00z TAF via mobile, but I believe that very few do that once they start getting into the plane.
But the early forecast should have been enough to have them checking destination wx enroute especially after a couple hours in the air, and considering diversion options before it was too late.
Alpine flying is dangerous
Mooney_Driver, assuming that you are a qualified mountain pilot, I can’t believe that you really meant to write that. Flying in the Alps requires a modicum of preparation and common sense, that’s all.
Sivaire wrote:
I find the notion of solving people problems through ever more restrictive regulation and additional certificates as absurd as you do. …[snip]… The not entirely false stereotype is that its a Germanic thing, but I think its common among some people everywhere. In any case, its a road to nowhere.
I couldn’t have put it better – hence the ludicrous new glider towing rating dreamt up by a committee of totalitarian EASSholes who decreed that our national gliding associations can no longer be allowed to train and approve their own tug pilots – unless they are towing with a non-EASA aeroplane.
Well, if it was an IFR flight, then I take it all back and suggest they must have been fools to launch into IMC without a second engine!
