Today’s tragedy
in Vauxhall, where a helicopter apparently collided with a tower crane while diverting
to the Battersea Heliport due to bad weather, highlights the extreme rarity of
light aircraft accidents impacting people on the ground.
Small aircraft,
whether fixed wing or rotary, are extremely unforgiving of inattention,
carelessness or neglect, hence no doubt the extremely high standards to which
their pilots are held in terms of training, medical fitness, and observance of
safety protocols. It is of course far
too early to say what lies behind today’s accident, but it is probably fair to
say that most light aircraft accidents are in some manner a result of pilot
error – sometimes that error can be something as basic as not checking that the
fuel tanks actually contain the fuel you expect them to contain, or not just
keeping your feet firmly on the ground when weather is looking threatening.
However, light
aircraft crashes which cause loss of life or serious injury beyond the persons
actually flying in them are vanishingly rare.
For about 20
years, I held a Private Pilot’s Licence for fixed-wing aircraft, and had my own
plane, a four-seater Cessna. To acquire
my licence I had to undergo at least 40 hours of training from a licensed
Qualified Flying Instructor, this despite the fact that I was already an
experienced glider pilot. From then on I
had to take a one-hour re-test every 2 years, in which I had to demonstrate my
ability not only to fly straight and level and perform simple maneouvres, but to
recover from potentially dangerous situations, including engine failure, forced
landings etc. Had I advanced beyond the
basic clear-weather flying to obtaining an “Instrument Rating” permitting me to
fly in cloud or bad weather, I would have been retested every six months. I had to record all my flying in a personal
flying logbook, showing take-off and landing times, origin and destination, and
other notes. My logbook was open to
inspection at any time by the Civil Aviation Authority and I had to prove that
I had completed the (relatively modest) minimum of 12 flying hours every two
years.
I had to submit
to a full medical examination at regular intervals. Every five years to age 40, then every 2
years to 50, every year after that, and if I continued beyond 60, it would be
every six months. Eyesight, hearing,
heart condition, blood pressure – all the things you expect in a full-monty
medical. If I needed glasses to pass the
eye test (as I did) I was required by law to wear my current prescription
whenever I flew, and to have a spare pare of that prescription within reach at
all times.
My plane was
subjected to an airworthiness test every year, and this typically takes about
40 man-hours to complete and costs well into four figures. Further, the plane had a minor test, about
the same amount of work as car MOT, every 50 flying hours or every 60 days
whichever came first. I also had to
maintain a logbook for the plane, showing much the same information as shown in
my personal log, plus estimated fuel & oil consumption, estimate of fuel
remaining (which you still check, with a dipstick, before every flight). This also was available for CAA inspection at
any time.
Whenever I flew, I
would run through a series of printed checklists, before starting the engine,
before taxiing out to the runway, before take-off, occasionally during flight, during
the approach and landing to an airfield, and after shut-down. I would check and verify the correct working
condition of every component of the plane – wheels and tyres, brakes, flying control
surfaces, propeller, radio and navigation aids etc – at least once on every separate
day of use.
Failure to comply
with any of the above controls could lead to extremely severe penalties. A fine for a flying infringement would rarely
be for less than about £2,000.
Light aircraft
crashes are generally rare, and those which have any impact on people on the
ground are almost unheard of.
Incidents
involving cars and other persons who are not drivers or passengers of those
cars are literally an everyday occurrence.
I doubt many are caused by engine failure due to fuel starvation
(depressingly common in light aircraft, despite all the regulation) but many –
perhaps even most - are due to other “pilot
error” which could mean carelessness while driving, or failing to check the
condition of tyres, brakes etc before driving away.
And yet, once you
have passed you test, there is literally nothing more for any
non-professional driver to do. Even incompetence
to drive caused by age and infirmity, failing eyesight, or other conditions
like fits, is not caught by routine medicals, rather by voluntary
self-reporting.
Perhaps raising
driving control standards to those of flying would be excessive, but can you
honestly say that at present they are sufficient?
One more thing you missed; when a plane accident happens, the investigating authorities are rarely content with just "pilot error" as the explanation. They want to know how the pilot error could have been prevented, so that (if reasonably possible), they can change the checklists you use or insist on modifications to the plane that would catch the problem.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, no-one investigates the majority of car accidents - so even if a modification to your driving would help, you won't be told what it is.
Simon - good point. In fact, it doesn't even have to be an accident to get investigated thoroughly, a near-accident might too. I once had an "airmiss" when I came round one side of a cloud and a RAF Hercules transport plane came round the other. After a fair imitation of one of those wing-over dives you see the spitfires doing in the war movies, and once my pulse rate had subsided, I reported it, as did the Herc pilot. The AAIB Airprox group reported a few months later, witha couple of pages in their regular bulletin,pointing the finger at Southampton air traffic control.
Delete