A fantastic example that pilots regulating pilots can be even worse than the EASA regulatory regime. It can lead to “Mr. petty and draconian flight club chief”, a well known personality type that can be found in pretty much every country (but not every club), to run the entire “system” and act like a King.
Cobalt wrote:
A fantastic example that pilots regulating pilots can be even worse than the EASA regulatory regime. It can lead to “Mr. petty and draconian flight club chief”, a well known personality type that can be found in pretty much every country (but not every club), to run the entire “system” and act like a King.
The reaction to this action has been from “Jesus Christ!!” to “facepalm” to “sigh” to "a knee jerk reaction, but maybe not unfounded ". But an example of what you describe, it is definitely not. I know this guy, spent several days together at a instructor seminar last year. He is a down to earth guy with no other intentions than having a great time flying for everyone evolved. But I’m sure there are other opinions, as there always are.
As I said above, I didn’t want to express my opinion about this. The reason is the main aspects here aren’t obvious at first glance, and the common knee jerk reaction like "Mr. petty and draconian flight club chief” and similar is just nonsense. What it boils down to in the end is public opinion and basic psychology. The thing is, no one wants to be associated with people who “don’t do their homework” and who fail miserably because of it. Certainly not when failure is fatal. Risk is accepted, making mistakes are accepted, doing “odd stuff” is accepted. But recklessness and negligence isn’t, not by the public and not within pilot communities. This has nothing to do with the last accident, but it’s a reminder to ourselves and the public that we have to take this stuff seriously.
“No flight plan, no contact with information, etc etc. I mean, if they had done the flight according to normal good practice,”
Neither of the first two could have caused the accident, nor are they my normal good practice. The “etc, etc” appear likely to be the probable cause. But did the “stand down” deal with them? And did every pilot need the reminders?
At Oshkosh in 1988 I picked up an FAA leaflet about “Go-No Go” decision making. I have my own very fluid criteria, depending on my currency in, eg crosswind landings.
The leaflet suggested groups should consider airline-style Go-No go criteria.
I thought about this with regard to our Group, but quickly rejected it as totally ridiculous due to the variety of experience, qualification, skill, and currency among the 6 of us.
Maoraigh wrote:
Neither of the first two could have caused the accident
No, but it could result in the rescue team finding them alive, an it would also greatly simplify the job of the rescue team, which is the whole purpose of FP for VFR. In fact there are regulation for this (for all non EASA aircraft operating in Svalbard and desolate places), my translation: “Normally a flight plan shall be filed with ATC. When this is not practically possible, a person on the ground shall be known with the content of the operation, so the rescue service can obtain information in case the aircraft is reported missing”.
I usually never file a flight plan when doing flights in the mountain, but I know others who always file flight plans no matter how or where they fly (I keep in touch with information/ATC though). Frankly, with IPPC, it’s just a matter of point and click, and you can sit down one evening and make templates that are filed later, literally in a couple of seconds. So why don’t I? I’m not sure. Lots of excuses (this isn’t Svalbard, I know how to take care of myself in the bush, it isn’t that far from people and so on), but I have no real reason. Helping eventual rescue teams is a good reason to do it all by itself (and this will of course benefit me also)
I think you are taking this out of context though. The statistics don’t lie, the fatality rate is much higher for LSA/microlights, and there are no obvious reasons for it. No technical reason, no reason that can be based on less experience (vs certified SEP). Yet, the accidents show pilot error to be the cause. Why is it so much higher, several times higher? One can only guess, but one thing is clear. Since it is that much higher, it is because a whole lot of pilots do something odd once they get into one of those planes.
LeSving wrote:
Yet, the accidents show pilot error to be the cause. Why is it so much higher, several times higher? One can only guess, but one thing is clear. Since it is that much higher, it is because a whole lot of pilots do something odd once they get into one of those planes.
The training for ultralights is much shorter than PPL training. Surely that must have some effect?
(National regulations, but in Sweden 20 hours for UL, compared to 30 for LAPL and 45 for PPL.)
Airborne_Again wrote:
The training for ultralights is much shorter than PPL training. Surely that must have some effect?
It used to be minimum 25 hours here, but since last year it is 30, same as LAPL. Also, a lot (most?) have PPL from way back. It’s just odd. Maybe some “blueberry effect” also. The rate is high, but it isn’t properly noticed until the total number increases. Maybe we are approaching similar numbers now? It’s the thing about statistics. A small individual improvement that may feel negligible for the individual safety, will improve the statistics overall. The opposite is also true.
I think the 25hr requirement speaks for itself. You can teach a good keen young and sharp pilot to fly a plane in 25hrs, but not to get any capability to do real flights from A to B. The average just to get the basic PPL is something like 50-60hrs (min is 45).
That’s the minimum. The number of hours needed to learn to fly is typically on average equal to your age in years (but with large variation). I don’t see A to B as any problem though, and neither do the students. There is something called GPS It’s not where accidents happen either except VFR into IMC and similar, it’s landing/take off, and it doesn’t help to have a PPL (statistically).
UK PPL was 30 hours if done in a limited time back in 1964. Otherwise 40 hours minimum. I did the 30 hour one. No ATC at any of the 2 away airfields on the cross country. No radio. No electrics. No-one to destroy your confidence when solo, or to distract you by asking for your present position and estimate for your next.
Picking up this topic from here I wonder how anyone can learn to fly safely, never mind usefully, in 15hrs?
The best aspect of that is perhaps that it enables someone with loads of unlogged flight time (flying as a passenger with a non-FI pilot) to learn the stuff and then get the paperwork in the minimum time, avoiding any ICAO-mandated minimum training hours like we have in the PPL, the IR, etc.
Normally, instructors get quite upset at the prospect of people learning that way But it can work.
