Plane crash nr. Oxford

[kevmul]

Reports of two people killed in a light aircraft crash near Oxford

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/8461861.stm

My thoughts and prayers for the victims and their families.

[Deleted]

The aircraft involved was N95RS and from the looks of it, had only recently been acquired by new owners. Here's an advert from when it was up for sale

cgaircraftsales.com/n95rs.htm

[Biggles]

Sad start to 2010, let`s hope after the prolonged and unusual freeze that aircraft owners who have had aircraft sitting about airfields for weeks frozen without being able to fly them don`t skimp checks just to get flying again.

[ronturner]

Some pretty bold statements from both parties there, and I don't like the tone of the last remark in Carmedics last post.
As far as I know the cause of the accident at Oxford is not known and it might not be due to a period of non use.
As for pilot checks, god forbid that I should fall foul of this one, but unfortunately the accident reports which we read monthly are full of incidents which could have been avoided if the pilot had done more, or better,or properly. Reading these reports can put you off flying for good if you take every one to heart, but they are nevertheless useful and often educational.
The most interesting thing about these incident reports is to see how infrequently accidents are caused by technical failure, pilot error of some sort being the major cause.
Lack of frequency (practical flying) is a killer. This is why the new EASA (European Aviation SAFETY Administration) is leading us down the road of LESS SAFETY: not more, because of the amount of money it is taking out of pilot's pockets in bureaucracy,leaving less to spend on being in the air.

[Deleted]

Jan 17, 2010 0:08:37 GMT 1 @carmedic said:

As someone who regularly flies in a light aircraft, I can assure you that a pilot would NOT "skimp" on the pre flight checks "just to get flying again"

In fact after a prolonged period when an aircraft has been inactive, a pilot would take even more care with the pre-flights than normal, especially with fuel checks, the T's and P's and engine power runs.

That may be so of the responsible pilot but there is always the 'its never happened to me before' or the 'why bother it will be alright' brigade. I've seen pilots just jump into machines start the engine and call for clearance, they could not possible have done all the pre-flight checks and certainly didn't do engine runs or warm-ups. The best one I saw was a pilot land a helicopter, run across the apron to a parked twin, start the engines, call for taxi clearance and was airborne within minutes.

Your obviously one of the responsible ones but Biggles is quite right, there are a few out there that are not. However, as Ron states it is too early to establish the cause of this crash and although he could have elabourated a little more, I don't think he was implying that this was the case in this particular incident but addressing a comment made in a news article.

[Biggles]

Unlike the usual thoughtless response from carmedic, mine was not a BOLD statement made without any thought on my part. I did not intend or even suggest that was the cause of this accident it was purely a statement made due to the severe and unusal ground and flying conditions. Finally try reading the CAA crash reports carmedic if you fly also an improvememt in your manners for 2010 would not go amiss.

[DC-10]

Well if the first statement wasn't bold That certainly was

[johnoakes]

;D

You won't get free speech like that in China/LOL or in the Ukraine if the election goes to the ex commies.

Handbags at dawn anyone.


This forum is nothing if not interesting.lol


You do still have to feel a great deal of sympathy for the individuals and families who have lost loved ones for whatever reason.

[DC-10]

I might take you up on the handbags at dawn John! ;D ;D ;D