Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:23 pm
warbird1 wrote:Not trying to lay blame here or point fingers, but did it have the same pilot flying the Blennie for both of it's accidents?
No. The pilot for the accident in the first aircraft (the second restoration was a different aircraft, albeit using parts from the first) was actually prosecuted afterwards and convicted. I'll check the details and confirm them. I don't know the details of the pilot in the second accident's status currently.
When something like that happens, and it's discovered that it's pilot error, do organizations typically sever ties with the pilot or do they let them continue to fly? What has happened in the past?
I guess it depends. In the specific case above, the first pilot was persona-non-grata as a result and I believe never returned to display flying. It is certainly not unusual for a pilot committing a gross error of judgement to be not invited to return.
What is perhaps worth mentioning is that in some cases, and specifically in the case of the first Blenheim accident, after the accident there is significant evidence of pre- accident poor decision making that comes to light as a result. In this particular case the aircraft's sponsor wished he'd taken action earlier to remove the pilot from the team. However, as we know it's easy act after an accident, much harder to make the judgement call before that a particular individual is not 'safe' enough to continue.
HTH.
Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:34 pm
JDK wrote:warbird1 wrote:Not trying to lay blame here or point fingers, but did it have the same pilot flying the Blennie for both of it's accidents?
No. The pilot for the accident in the first aircraft (the second restoration was a different aircraft, albeit using parts from the first) was actually prosecuted afterwards and convicted. I'll check the details and confirm them. I don't know the details of the pilot in the second accident's status currently.
Thanks JDK. On that first accident, what was the pilot convicted of? Did they go to jail or just lose their pilot's license?
Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:56 pm
Having so comprehensively hijacked his thread (apologies!) Maybe m charters would like to start another thread on he CWH Bolly project?
Anyway, in answer to the earlier question, with reference to Graham Warner's book, 'The Forgotten Bomber'. (Graham was then the owner and sponsor of the restoration.)
The pilot at the Denham accident carried out an unplanned, and un-briefed 'touch and go' on the runway. The other crewman in the front cockpit advised against this, but was overruled by the PiC. Due to the pilot's handling of the engines, they 'rich cut' and the aircraft crashed on a golf-course past the runway. The three crew were injured, but there were, amazingly, no fatalities and all three made full recoveries I understand. Despite the evidence, both video footage, the accounts of the other crew and much other data, the pilot would not apparently accept any responsibility for the accident.
In January 1989 the pilot was prosecuted by the Civil Aviation Authority and tried under two criminal charges under article 47 and 48 of the Air Navigation Orders. 'A person shall not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or persons therein' and 'A person shall not recklessly or negligently cause an aircraft to endanger any person or property."
I should add at this stage that It is very, very rare for such a case to appear in the UK.
He was convicted on both charges after 11 days of bitter defence by his Queen's Council, fined 1,000 pounds on each count and ordered to make 'a substantial contribution to the prosecution costs'.
The restoration team had spent twelve years restoring the aircraft, which was in perfect working order, and no shortfall in the aircraft or blame was apportioned to the restoration team or owner. The miracles were that no one was seriously injured, and that the majority of the team picked up the pieces and restored another Blenheim within a much shorter time to fly. This second aircraft was to be displayed at numerous venues and go through (IIRC) at least three different (accurate) schemes to commemorate different RAF Commands (Night Fighters, Coastal and Bomber) in front of thousands of people who would otherwise have not seen it.
It is under restoration after the last incident and will fly again.
Regards,
Anyway, in answer to the earlier question, with reference to Graham Warner's book, 'The Forgotten Bomber'. (Graham was then the owner and sponsor of the restoration.)
The pilot at the Denham accident carried out an unplanned, and un-briefed 'touch and go' on the runway. The other crewman in the front cockpit advised against this, but was overruled by the PiC. Due to the pilot's handling of the engines, they 'rich cut' and the aircraft crashed on a golf-course past the runway. The three crew were injured, but there were, amazingly, no fatalities and all three made full recoveries I understand. Despite the evidence, both video footage, the accounts of the other crew and much other data, the pilot would not apparently accept any responsibility for the accident.
In January 1989 the pilot was prosecuted by the Civil Aviation Authority and tried under two criminal charges under article 47 and 48 of the Air Navigation Orders. 'A person shall not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or persons therein' and 'A person shall not recklessly or negligently cause an aircraft to endanger any person or property."
I should add at this stage that It is very, very rare for such a case to appear in the UK.
He was convicted on both charges after 11 days of bitter defence by his Queen's Council, fined 1,000 pounds on each count and ordered to make 'a substantial contribution to the prosecution costs'.
The restoration team had spent twelve years restoring the aircraft, which was in perfect working order, and no shortfall in the aircraft or blame was apportioned to the restoration team or owner. The miracles were that no one was seriously injured, and that the majority of the team picked up the pieces and restored another Blenheim within a much shorter time to fly. This second aircraft was to be displayed at numerous venues and go through (IIRC) at least three different (accurate) schemes to commemorate different RAF Commands (Night Fighters, Coastal and Bomber) in front of thousands of people who would otherwise have not seen it.
It is under restoration after the last incident and will fly again.
Regards,
Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:37 pm
No worries (JDK) on the hi-jack! All this information is interesting to read.
Interesting to point out for those that don't know of the rich cut on the Bristol Mercury it is an eye opening experience apparently.
An interesting article I read on the Lysander pilots notes when we were getting ours ready to fly was on Pilotweb at the following link.
http://www.pilotweb.aero/content/articl ... px?id=3038
Part way through the article describes the rich engine cut out.
Interesting to point out for those that don't know of the rich cut on the Bristol Mercury it is an eye opening experience apparently.
An interesting article I read on the Lysander pilots notes when we were getting ours ready to fly was on Pilotweb at the following link.
http://www.pilotweb.aero/content/articl ... px?id=3038
Part way through the article describes the rich engine cut out.
Tue Oct 20, 2009 9:16 pm
Thanks for that info, JDK. All of that was new to me, having never heard it before. Sorry for the tangent this thread took.
To Mike: What kind of engines do you guys plan on hanging on the Boly?
To Mike: What kind of engines do you guys plan on hanging on the Boly?
Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:50 am
Bristols!
Pratts are an option as some did use them. But they are hard to find as well.
Pratts are an option as some did use them. But they are hard to find as well.
Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:03 pm
Bloody, bloody nice work! Looking forward to further updates.
Would love to see a Bisley one of these days...
Would love to see a Bisley one of these days...