Cranfield Crash - Hinton Pilot Flight Training
Discussion
The AAIB have now published the report on their findings into the accident:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Pip...
The BBC have made a news report on the issues raised by the AAIB report, including comments asking questions of the CAA as to why it did not act quicker to investigate and perhaps stop the activities of Hinton Pilot flight training sooner.
The BBC report includes an interview with the Chief Executive of the British Gliding Association (Pete Stratten), The BGA had removed from Hinton Pilot Flight Training any maintenance support or authorization to operate some of the aircraft at Hinton Pilot Flight training using the BGA maintenance approval. That was done some 10 months before the serious accident at Cranfield, which caused extensive injuries to the two people in the aircraft.
The CAA had received a series of reports from concerned instructors (who either left or were sacked from HPFT) which raised concerns over anomalies in the records and maintenance of the aircraft. This was first reported to the CAA 18 months before the near fatal accident at Cranfield.
The BBC report can be heard here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcuUclmYPog
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Pip...
The BBC have made a news report on the issues raised by the AAIB report, including comments asking questions of the CAA as to why it did not act quicker to investigate and perhaps stop the activities of Hinton Pilot flight training sooner.
The BBC report includes an interview with the Chief Executive of the British Gliding Association (Pete Stratten), The BGA had removed from Hinton Pilot Flight Training any maintenance support or authorization to operate some of the aircraft at Hinton Pilot Flight training using the BGA maintenance approval. That was done some 10 months before the serious accident at Cranfield, which caused extensive injuries to the two people in the aircraft.
The CAA had received a series of reports from concerned instructors (who either left or were sacked from HPFT) which raised concerns over anomalies in the records and maintenance of the aircraft. This was first reported to the CAA 18 months before the near fatal accident at Cranfield.
The BBC report can be heard here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcuUclmYPog
I guess that's a chicken and egg coming first type question?
The fact is that the aircraft engine suffered a problem, it was found that unlicenced maintenance had been done on the aircraft and it had also used (at some point) a type of fuel that was not cleared for use in a flying schools aircraft.
That does not excuse the young and inexperienced instructor turning back to the airfield and stalling in. That is widely recognized as a no no.
There are lots of other questions and rumors that are not answered in the report. For example: The instructor had 390 hours total time, one question is was he a full unrestricted instructor? He had flown at least 150 hours getting his PPL, CPL and his Flight instructors ratings, so that would seem to leave little time to get all of the solo sign offs to become an unrestricted instructor.
If he was not, then who was supervising him and were they at Cranfield on the day of the accident?
The fact is that the aircraft engine suffered a problem, it was found that unlicenced maintenance had been done on the aircraft and it had also used (at some point) a type of fuel that was not cleared for use in a flying schools aircraft.
That does not excuse the young and inexperienced instructor turning back to the airfield and stalling in. That is widely recognized as a no no.
There are lots of other questions and rumors that are not answered in the report. For example: The instructor had 390 hours total time, one question is was he a full unrestricted instructor? He had flown at least 150 hours getting his PPL, CPL and his Flight instructors ratings, so that would seem to leave little time to get all of the solo sign offs to become an unrestricted instructor.
If he was not, then who was supervising him and were they at Cranfield on the day of the accident?
No - just a pilot who tries to run a flying school and scrape a living in aviation, margins get cut to a minimum by the cost of following all the rules (which is what we do).
Yet something like this happens and its found out that it was 18 months before anything was done by the CAA (close the school down)dispite people raising concerns with them, action ONLY after a near fatal accident that will have life changing consequences for the two injured. It just seems that the system is wrong.
Saving an extra 80p on a litre of fuel might not seem a lot, but its an extra £19 per hour of profit when flying, which can be the difference between surviving as a business or folding. That's fine if it was safe to use the cheaper fuel. There are some very good reasons why mogas is not allowed in that type of aircraft for flight training.
I agree that it was not blamed as the only factor that caused the crash, but it must be considered a factor. Put everything together and the end result was a nasty crash.
Listen to the BBC report - the reporter makes some very good points
Yet something like this happens and its found out that it was 18 months before anything was done by the CAA (close the school down)dispite people raising concerns with them, action ONLY after a near fatal accident that will have life changing consequences for the two injured. It just seems that the system is wrong.
Saving an extra 80p on a litre of fuel might not seem a lot, but its an extra £19 per hour of profit when flying, which can be the difference between surviving as a business or folding. That's fine if it was safe to use the cheaper fuel. There are some very good reasons why mogas is not allowed in that type of aircraft for flight training.
I agree that it was not blamed as the only factor that caused the crash, but it must be considered a factor. Put everything together and the end result was a nasty crash.
Listen to the BBC report - the reporter makes some very good points
The problem you have is a lot of people complain about the CAA for bringing in new rules and limitations constantly yet when they need to act in situations like that they appear to take their time.
I was quite shocked the other day reading a flight safety article about an airprox, the board believe they identified the other aircraft involved but on contacting the pilot he refused to cooperate with the investigation. I would have thought it would be compulsory to assist in the matter?
Back to the article though and it does make you wonder how many other operations or even personnel aircraft are run in a similar fashion.
I was quite shocked the other day reading a flight safety article about an airprox, the board believe they identified the other aircraft involved but on contacting the pilot he refused to cooperate with the investigation. I would have thought it would be compulsory to assist in the matter?
Back to the article though and it does make you wonder how many other operations or even personnel aircraft are run in a similar fashion.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff