[ROG]

Sometime ago we had a new member in the group. --the guy had just got his PPL and so he was "checked out" by an instructor to fly the aircraft, He agreed to fly 25 hours with our most experienced member to insure that he was ok.

After a couple of hours flying with our "expert" we were informed that the guy had "no idea" of landing the aircraft , no airmanship--reported mid channel as he crossed the french coast on a trip to france.plus other similar.
He would not take advice, and landings were persistently bad. However we decided to give him every chance. Afer some 17 hours with our "expert"--generally viewed as a competent pilot by his peers--the new man was still not improving and not listening.

Returning to base at 1 7 hours with our mr Y with a strongish x wind at home base, our expert said it would be better if he flew back to base. While he was spending a penny X ran to the aircraft and jumps into the left seat,
Y--our group man--said ok --listen to what i say --this could be a bit tricky.

Off they set--as they come into land at 30 feet up without warning X pulls up the nose and pulls back throttle--plane drops like a brick with one wing down --crashes into runway and bounces up to about 15 feet. -X sits there taking no corrective action. Y then says "i have control"--being still able to land it with possible structural damage.
At this point X starts shouting "i have control-don"t speak to me like that ever "
Y then decides rather than possibly making situation worse best to coax X round to another landing.

Another horrendous arrival--tower staff witnessed crash--on final "landing"--the fire engines follow plane back to apron and tower staff come down to see if anyone wasd injured.

The incident was witnessed from the ground by other pilots who "could not beleive their eyes "
Needless to say mr X departed the group next day. The aircraft was checked for damage--none obvious --but next day 2 tyres went on landing--2 tyres and 3 innertubes had to be replaced and a further total check carried out.
We were lucky that the dropped wing did not hit the ground--our engineer advised that many types of aircraft woul d not have survived such an impact.

A couple of things arose from the incident-
1-----checkout--how useful--did the guy behave himself with an instructor--he certainly had/has an attitude problem

2---what would you do if someone who had "lost it "refused to hand over control. ?

[eltonioni]

Obviously yours is a sorry tale, but wanting 25 hours to be checked out?

Does your group operate a 737?

[Flyin'Dutch']

Unusual to ask for 25 hours of supervised flying was there any indication that this would be necessary or a good plan?

Regarding the 'discussion' on who had control............

An interesting scenario which once more demonstrates the need to agree this unanimously before take-off.

[Timothy]

Unless he was an instructor, your man was not in a position to demand control.

Unfortunately flying is one of those activities that attracts arrogant, over confident jerks.

My preference would have been to have offered him his money back, taken him off the insurance, and refused to fly with him when his attitude became clear many hours earlier.

Let us hope that he gives up aviation and takes up some other activity where he can express his innate superiority.

[ROG]

The aircraft in question is a PA28---180C--a lot different from a PA28-140. or a cessna 150 The guy in question only had a total of 65 hours --all on cessna 150/152. Have a look at the caa accident reports for this type---numerous nosewheel accidents with low hour pilots.

The 25 hours was a "safety net"--as he was low hour--had he proved to be ok at a lower number-eg 10 hours--we would have ok"d him. If the plane is damaged--5 guys cant fly.
Bear in mind that many groups look for a 100 hours P1 before taking on new members. Our aircraft is in exellent condition and we want to keep it that way.

However main point of interest to us are questions 1 and 2--appreciate your views as seems to be difficult questions when discussed with other pilots.

[Lowtimer]

It's not an easy thing to live with sometimes but the commander of the aeroplane is one of those things which has to be determined before a flight, not during it. That's the good thing about an instructor flying as P1 - it's clear who is in charge, and that "I have control" can be an instruction rather than a response to an invitation.

If it is agreed before flight that I am in command, then I'm in command. That doesn't mean I will be handling pilot for the whole flight but I know I will be held responsible for the consequences of the flight and will act accordingly.

I am always uneasy about "syndicate check-outs" and similar situations where there may appear to be an implied ambiguity about who is in command, and in any situation where there may be doubt I think it's a good idea to discuss various situations in advance as part of the briefing. Normal handling, what exercises e.g. stalling, spinning, steep turns the other guy is comfortable with, who will do what in event of an EFATO, that sort of thing. These are not good times for disputes to break out.

What you describe looks like a very thorough lack of ability on this guy's part so it seems surprising, on the face of it, that the instructor reckoned he was safe on the aeroplane. How experienced is the instructor, and has he had anything further to say about the guy?

I think Timothy's solution is the only one, by the way.

[ROG]

Timothy--you"re right. We discussed in group--decided to give him every chance--but were bitten in the end.
After incident--which was final straw we refunded him his money-less something towards new tyres and tubes/structural check.
As far as i know he flew with another guy in a club plane--guy "disappeared"--he then flew on his own a few times and then i was told--probably left aviation--to make his mark on the local sailing community.
I heard that before leaving the club he taxid a cessna into a fence somwhere.
Basically it seemed to be an attitude problem.

[Flyin'Dutch']

To answer your questions ROG;

1. When it became apparent that this chap was not operating in a manner that your checkout guy was comfortable with this should have been discussed with the parties involved and it might have been an idea to get him to fly more with another instructor until landings had improved consistently.

2. In the heat of the moment it would depend on the exact scenario; if the 'discussion' took place during the recovery from the balloon there may not have been another option than just sit it out. If the same discussion took place during the landing roll I would have pulled out the mixture and fought for it. Mind you, as T says; this situation should never have been allowed to develop.

Agree with lowtimer's observation re checkouts by non instructors; maybe a CRI course for those who want to do this sort of thing is apt.

[ROG]

Lowtimer--absolutely right--i take control was inferred --but as you say not written in stone. Our experienced man gave him every chance to sort out the crash --which he didn"t .Only when the plane hit the deck for the second time did he try to take over.
I didn"t want to write pages bit would add thast there were two passengers in the back seat--one a pilot who said hand the controls to Y, and a female who was screaming the same.

It was, i would hope, a pretty unique situation. We have learned from it--and so thought it useful to raise on forum--you never know.......

[ROG]

Flying dutch-----he was checked out by an instructor before joining the group.
By some means/ not a thoroughcheck?--we were told that he was ok.
It became obvious as time went on that he wasn"t.
All of our new members initially fly a few hours with X --get used to controls etc---they can --once au fait with plane --fly as they wish--but most continue to fly with him--using his experience and as another pair of eyes. We can all learn from each other--the guy who knows it all is the danger.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Flying dutch-----he was checked out by an instructor before joining the group.
By some means/ not a thoroughcheck?--we were told that he was ok.
It became obvious as time went on that he wasn"t.
All of our new members initially fly a few hours with X --get used to controls etc---they can --once au fait with plane --fly as they wish--but most continue to fly with him--using his experience and as another pair of eyes. We can all learn from each other--the guy who knows it all is the danger.

ROG,

Your logic is slightly flawed if you think that he should not fly with another instructor as he was already checked out but it would be OK to fly with a well willing amateur from your syndicate.

If the guy did a satisfactory checkout he was signed off; if other things come to light later on, as they did, then maybe his skills should have been reassessed by an instructor, not just muddle on as in this scenario.

Or does once good mean always good?

[KNT754G]

Certainly sounds as if either pilot X behaved himself impaccably with the checkout instructor or that he shold never have been passed by said instructor without further official PU/T time.

I have heard of 25 hours checkout before, but that was for a fairly new PPL(A) joining a C182 group when he had never flown a wobbly prop before.

At the end of 25 hours he had a NQ and an IMC and was well familiar with the aeroplane, the whole 25 hours were PU/T to me in the RHS.

[Irv Lee]

Flying dutch-----he was checked out by an instructor before joining the group.
By some means/ not a thoroughcheck?--we were told that he was ok.

Or maybe the guy clever enough to 'perform' when he had to - perhaps like on the test for his licence, that's a 'good on the day' thing. As for checkouts, when some prospective renters realise after a couple of circuits that they are not going to rent until they do a good flared landing 3 times, they start doing good flared landings. Maybe weeks later if I happen to observe a 'flat' landing from the clubroom and comment, I hear it's just that one they got wrong. I don't get much time to observe tho'.

[PeteSpencer]

Whereas a member of our group will fly once with a prospective new member (who sits in the RHS) and let him take control during the flight, he will not do the take-off or landing.

If as a result of the flight he decides to join, we get him checked out and signed off at his expense by the CFI of a flying club not a million miles away from LKI.

The CFI has complete freedom over how many hours are needed and has the right to refuse to sign off if he's unhappy, though this has never happened.

25 hours does seem a lot: had warning bells rung at any stage in the 'induction' process?

Peter

[ROG]

Pete--the new member had actually flown for some 15/20 hours with another member--in right hand seat, with our member doing take offs and landoings. The inadequacies of the new member did not appear during this period--the guy was sociable and likeable. Thus he seemed on the basis of a group member recommendation to be ok.
It was only AFTER a checkout by an instructor--who gave him the ok --that the inadequacies and "attitude" problems surfaced. As said it was only after flying with our most expeienced member--getting on for 1000 hours on this aircraft--who wanted to give him every chance and discussed with other members---that it became aspparent that the guy was a danger to us and the aircraft--which has been lovingly improved over the years.

With hindsight we should have taken action earlier--we are lucky that the aircraft was not severely damaged--along with occupants.

i MUST FINALLY SAY THAT IT WAS WITH A SENSE OF RELIEF WHEN THE GROUP FINALLY DECIDED ENOUGH IS ENOUGH..

We all learn by experience and hope that we do not get into that situation again. I am sure that we are not the only group that has had such a situation--thanks to all for your comments---