Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 23
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1883330
The word PPR was mentioned 44 times in this report but I don't agree with its stance - as if the use of PPR would "save the day".

From a purely safety point of view, the airfield could have equally NOTAMed its runway condition and the pilot to fully check this and make his own assessment and calculations whether the runway was suitable and long enough for his aircraft whilst applying the relevant safety factor.
By johnm
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1883333
James Chan wrote:The word PPR was mentioned 44 times in this report but I don't agree with its stance - as if the use of PPR would "save the day".

From a purely safety point of view, the airfield could have equally NOTAMed its runway condition and the pilot to fully check this and make his own assessment and calculations whether the runway was suitable and long enough for his aircraft whilst applying the relevant safety factor.



Sorry, this is an unlicensed private strip unlikely to have routine route into the NOTAM system and the owner is entitled to determine who lands and who doesn't. Had the unfortunate pilot called for PPR he would probably still be alive because the owner, on hearing aircraft type, would have forbidden him to go there.....
Katamarino, nallen, TopCat and 15 others liked this
User avatar
By James Chan
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1883334
the owner is entitled to determine who lands and who doesn't


Indeed but that’s wasn’t my point. My point is its use with regards to safety.
By Dominie
#1883335
johnm wrote:Had the unfortunate pilot called for PPR he would probably still be alive because the owner, on hearing aircraft type,
and been told of the pilot's (in)experience
would have forbidden him to go there.....
By A4 Pacific
#1883339
Peter Gristwood wrote:Very depressing read. Sounds like the pilot wouldn't take advice from anyone and had an exaggerated view of his own competence. Not a safe combination, especially for low-time newbies


I can’t really comment about the deceased pilot’s personality. However it doesn’t look like he acted alone in this venture? It appears a more experienced Maule pilot was also involved?
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1883342
James Chan wrote:The word PPR was mentioned 44 times in this report but I don't agree with its stance - as if the use of PPR would "save the day".

From a purely safety point of view, the airfield could have equally NOTAMed its runway condition and the pilot to fully check this and make his own assessment and calculations whether the runway was suitable and long enough for his aircraft whilst applying the relevant safety factor.


No:
(my bold).

It is not the owner/operator of a private airstrip's duty to issue NOTAMs concerning the state of an unlicensed airfield .

That is the purpose of insisting on PPR at which a safety briefing can be issued with information on any conditions that might preclude a safe arrival.
The operator would be within his rights to refuse PPR at this point.

If a pilot subsequently decided to ignore PPR refusal or doesn't seek PPR in the first place then he is a trespasser and responsible for his own actions.

The frequent mention of ' PPR ' in this report was quite justified and highlights, without actually pointing the finger, the inadvisability/irresponsibility of the accident pilot's actions.
Pete L, nallen, BEX and 7 others liked this
User avatar
By flyingearly
#1883344
This is very sad reading indeed.

My question is really around the root cause analysis: it reads as though - based on the information in the AAIB report - it is acceptable to ask how this person even ended up with a licence, given the quite significant red flags highlighted prior to the accident flight?
Pete L, Rob P, rusty eagle liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1883352
It's depressing, but still quite interesting.

My summary would be:

- understood 'short'
- did not understand the effect of 'soggy'
- had been in and out of there before, and somewhere even shorter, so had a false sense of security
- even so, got airborne but had poor low speed handling skills
- failed to seek and pay attention to advice which might have protected him from his bad decisions
- overconfident, paid the price.

Also interesting is the apparent comment from his instructor:

He also spoke at length about the type of flying he should be doing to gain experience with
his new licence; it did not include any grass
or performance limiting airfields.

Really? Any grass airfields? Despite authorising a pre-test solo visit to Troutbeck? That strikes me as odd.

Troutbeck would be pushing it for me, for sure. It would have to be cold, a good headwind down the strip, with the grass short, very dry and firm, and the aircraft very light, before I'd even contemplate it, and even then, probably not for very long.
Lockhaven liked this
User avatar
By Rob P
#1883356
The PPR issue for strips is beyond argument. This just highlights it.

But the more you read, the more obvious it becomes that the pilot was unlikely to reach a ripe old age unless his attitude changed, or he gave up flying.

Pity about the aircraft

Rob P
Lockhaven, Talkdownman, Flyin'Dutch' and 2 others liked this
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1883357
I'm based at a strip similar to Troutbeck, we require PPR. At places like this, it is important and this case proves it. I feel so sorry for the strip owner. He has attempted to make things as safe as he can for potential visitors and still this happens. It was completely out of his control. Yet, this will hang around in memories for years.

What more could he have done? Pretty much nothing short of confiscating keys and banning the departure completely.
Rob P, Lockhaven, VRB_20kt and 5 others liked this
User avatar
By Lockhaven
#1883358
I agree with @Rob P the pilot was inexperienced but over confident with a degree of arrogance, not a good combination with 70 hours under your belt, unfortunately an accident at some point was inevitable.
Rob P, Lefty liked this
User avatar
By JAFO
#1883359
TopCat wrote:Also interesting is the apparent comment from his instructor:

He also spoke at length about the type of flying he should be doing to gain experience with
his new licence; it did not include any grass
or performance limiting airfields.

Really? Any grass airfields? Despite authorising a pre-test solo visit to Troutbeck? That strikes me as odd.


Different instructors, I think, TC.

One was his supervising instructor who had apparently authorised both trips, the other had flown with him early in his flight training and was the one who drove to the short private strip to tell him he was a plonker (I have paraphrased slightly).
By AlanM
#1883360
James Chan wrote:
the owner is entitled to determine who lands and who doesn't


Indeed but that’s wasn’t my point. My point is its use with regards to safety.


Surely, as said, the PPR in this instance was a potential safety barrier to stop such an event.

Not all PPR is the same. The aircraft would need PPR into Heathrow as well.

Sad reading in every sense. Not least for those left behind.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 23