Joined: Aug 23, 2005 Posts: 266 Location: On a course.... golf course
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2005 11:00 pm Post subject:
Weekend Warrior says:
"If the actual weather is worse than forecast then the forecasting authority should be held accountable."
Well, that ain't gonna work. All they will do is forecast the worst possible weather every day, so that some dill doesn't sue them because he wasn't smart enough to obey the Visual Flight RULES. Remember that these rules tell you what distance and height to keep separation from clouds.
The forecast is a guess at what will happen, based on physics, and the history of what happened in the past when the weather was like that. The pilot then is supposed to use this as a guide. If bad Wx is forecast, don't go. If the forecast is marginal, use your eyes and apply the rules.
Don't push on.
You don't absolutely have to get home tonight.
"Experience" is the accident you DIDN'T have.
Take a look at the weather report from Birmingham airport.
But ultimately the instructor flew from Shobdon to Wellsbourne 1/2 way along the route (East of Worcester) the weather had deteriorated, this is what the instructor told the AAIB and in my opinion this is where he should of put a stop to any solo flight.
I've no issue with anything you've said, Wozza, I quite agree.
weekend warrior wrote:
But even so, the AAIB seems to suggest that it was likely to have been the carburettor icing which got him.
What the AAIB are implying, is that a combination of factors led to carb heat being neglected; the reducing visibility, the "formation" flight, the need for the student to be in contact with the instructor, etc. The suggestion therefore is that all of these factors pushed that pilot's work load above what he was realistically capable of in that circumstance. Then, as the engine spluttered to a halt, the capacity to respond to that wasn't availble. Ultimately it was carb icing that caused the engine to fail, but other factors caused the ice to go unchecked. The weak link is human fallibility.
but, faced with the added stress of having to follow another aircraft in reducing visibility, did not react quickly enough to prevent a critical reduction in rotor rpm.
weekend warrior wrote:
One is left to wonder whether there might have been a completely different outcome had this aircraft not been fitted with a carburettor.
Indeed - and given the circumstances, I would suggest it possible that other outcomes would too, not be, umm, 'favourable'.
I know what you're saying - "carburettors are dangerous" - but operated properly, they're as safe as any other engine! _________________ J.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum