On making it difficult for everyone else

http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621

Frank Whiteley wrote:

http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621


Would the Kilkenny pilot have been allowed to drive his automobile
in his physical condition? Had he driven legally to the airfield
from which he was flying? Could he have driven, legally or
otherwise, into Dublin with all those around him unaware? Surely the
Irish must rise up in arms and place all of those with heart
problems under house-arrest, if such is the case!

Do we now see those who are quite likely to be no harm to anyone but
themselves as being the culprits rather than seeing the nanny-State,
which presumes to decide for each and all of us what is best, as the
real villain?

How interesting that my spell-checker should have suggested the word
"Valhalla" when it encountered "Mulhall".


Jack

Jack wrote:
Frank Whiteley wrote:

http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621


Would the Kilkenny pilot have been allowed to drive his automobile in
his physical condition? Had he driven legally to the airfield from which
he was flying? Could he have driven, legally or otherwise, into Dublin
with all those around him unaware? Surely the Irish must rise up in arms
and place all of those with heart problems under house-arrest, if such
is the case!

Do we now see those who are quite likely to be no harm to anyone but
themselves as being the culprits rather than seeing the nanny-State,
which presumes to decide for each and all of us what is best, as the
real villain?

Did you read the article?
Protection from you and your lot's flagrant disregard for reasonable
regulation (i.e. flying with a current medical), that you seem to
endorse, is why the rest of us need the "Nanny State".

Shawn

On May 3, 5:21 pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:
http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621


To the best of my knowledge, pilot incapacitation through ill health
has not resulted in any serious injuries to anyone other than the
pilot of a single-seat glider.

Certainly it's against the regulations in most countries to fly when
your health is in question, but I doubt there are few who would
censure a solo glider pilot for ignoring this regulation.

I, like most pilots, break a few regs from time to time.

Mike

On May 3, 9:12 pm, Jack wrote:
Frank Whiteley wrote:
http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621

Would the Kilkenny pilot have been allowed to drive his automobile
in his physical condition? Had he driven legally to the airfield
from which he was flying? Could he have driven, legally or
otherwise, into Dublin with all those around him unaware? Surely the
Irish must rise up in arms and place all of those with heart
problems under house-arrest, if such is the case!

Do we now see those who are quite likely to be no harm to anyone but
themselves as being the culprits rather than seeing the nanny-State,
which presumes to decide for each and all of us what is best, as the
real villain?

How interesting that my spell-checker should have suggested the word
"Valhalla" when it encountered "Mulhall".

Jack

I don't disagree that an individual in a personal glider accepts the
risk, but that's definitely not the case here.

I think the stated fact that he continued to flaunt the regs by flying
power and the club's tow plane for four years after the expiration of
his license and medical disqualification is telling. He was flight
disqualified, period, and did not sign the required self-certification
document.

The fact that he died in the glider drew significant attention. He
might have died in the pub later that night, in bed, or on the road,
and that would not have drawn this review. Re-read the last
paragraph. The tone is ominous, yet it has been shown over the years
that a flight medical is not a reliable predictor of whether a pilot
will succumb at the controls.

What it shows is that the club committee or board did not take due
diligence in it's obligations to the members and the greater soaring
community to ensure that those entrusted instructional and towing
duties were, in fact, qualified. The point is, whether some of them
knew, or suspected, they clearly were not auditing the situation.
It's a relatively simple matter to do so. The important fact is that
the individual put all of the members at risk, if not in personal
terms (instruction and towing), at the very least in financial terms.
It was a club glider after all.

Now it appears that entire national organization is is pressured to
jump through hoops due to the arrogance, and lack of personal
integrity, of one, and the negligence of a few.

Frank

Frank Whiteley wrote:
http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621

Hi Frank

Regrettably all a current medical certificate is useful for is knowing that the
recipient WAS fit to fly at the time that they took the medical. Half an hour
later, who knows.

There is very little correlation between having a valid - one year old medical,
and fitness to fly.

Of course I agree that this does make it more difficult for the rest of us.
Because, of course, the various bureaucracies involved are not interested - they
want more stuff to administer, and more stuff to cover their ample posteriors with.

Mr Mulhall either felt fit to fly, or had decided to die in his glider. Given
the record presented one assumes it was the former, and that some eventuality
happened. Sadly, one of the soaring greats in South Africa died at my club, in
very similar circumstances. Helle Lasch (also in his late seventies) flew a
cross country in his Ventus, called downwind and flew a nice circuit, then
failed to appear from behind the hangars. When they reached the scene he had
impacted nose down, wings level, on the runway threshold...

On the subject of casting stones - have you ever driven while unfit?
Cold/flu/alcohol? Far more risk to self and others involved there, yet there is
no regular drivers medical. (OK we have a five yearly vision test)

Frank Whiteley wrote:
On May 3, 9:12 pm, Jack wrote:

Frank Whiteley wrote:

http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621

Would the Kilkenny pilot have been allowed to drive his automobile
in his physical condition? Had he driven legally to the airfield
from which he was flying? Could he have driven, legally or
otherwise, into Dublin with all those around him unaware? Surely the
Irish must rise up in arms and place all of those with heart
problems under house-arrest, if such is the case!

Do we now see those who are quite likely to be no harm to anyone but
themselves as being the culprits rather than seeing the nanny-State,
which presumes to decide for each and all of us what is best, as the
real villain?

How interesting that my spell-checker should have suggested the word
"Valhalla" when it encountered "Mulhall".

Jack


I don't disagree that an individual in a personal glider accepts the
risk, but that's definitely not the case here.

I think the stated fact that he continued to flaunt the regs by flying
power and the club's tow plane for four years after the expiration of
his license and medical disqualification is telling. He was flight
disqualified, period, and did not sign the required self-certification
document.

That part is worrying - I am pretty sure all of us have had at least one flight
where we realised that we were not really fit to fly no matter what our medical
certificate said. I know I have. But this is different - It looks like he
consciously elected to disregard the rules and four years of illegal power
flying is cause for concern. This was clearly not a momentaty oversight, on his
part, or on the management where he flew.

The fact that he died in the glider drew significant attention. He
might have died in the pub later that night, in bed, or on the road,
and that would not have drawn this review. Re-read the last
paragraph. The tone is ominous, yet it has been shown over the years
that a flight medical is not a reliable predictor of whether a pilot
will succumb at the controls.

What it shows is that the club committee or board did not take due
diligence in it's obligations to the members and the greater soaring
community to ensure that those entrusted instructional and towing
duties were, in fact, qualified. The point is, whether some of them
knew, or suspected, they clearly were not auditing the situation.
It's a relatively simple matter to do so. The important fact is that
the individual put all of the members at risk, if not in personal
terms (instruction and towing), at the very least in financial terms.
It was a club glider after all.

Maybe the club was too short of members to be viable without him. Maybe he was
so dominant as the incumbent CFI that no checks were made on him.
People assume that previous behaviour will continue - so probably no-one
presumed to check up on the CFI.


Now it appears that entire national organization is is pressured to
jump through hoops due to the arrogance, and lack of personal
integrity, of one, and the negligence of a few.

This is sadly very true. While it is trite to say, the nanny state will make the
lives of those who follow the rules harder, while making very little difference
to those who for whatever reason have decided to ignore them.

We have the requirement to have and carry a valid license, with your ratings and
medical and flight review dates on it. This gets posted anually to the clubs
safety officer. (in our club thats me) Safety officer has job of keeping an eye
on who is due for renewal. Duty instructor is expected to make occasional checks
and enforce the rules. Expired anything means loss of solo flying privileges.

The associated assumption of responsibility is one factor in the increasing
difficulty we experience in getting people to fill the leadership roles such as
CFI, or Safety Officer or Club Exco. As a self empoloyed person, the reward I
can expect for my voluntary and unremunerated work is that the time and cost
involved in a legal case involving an incident at my club could bankrupt me.

Bruce

"Frank Whiteley" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621


There is really no correlation between medical status and certification as
far as I can see. It is well documented that very few accidents have been
attributed to a pre-existing medical condition.

You never know your moment when flying. One day I was duty instructor at
Husbands Bosworth and I was sitting in the back seat of our Ka2, cable
connected, all out given, when the wing tip holder suddenly collapsed and
dropped the wing. I released the cable at once, and fortunately the tug
pilot was a bit slow to open up and there was no damage done. The wing tip
man (who was NEXT to fly with me) had had a heart attack and in spite of our
best efforts we could not revive him and he died at the scene. Very sad. I
count myself very lucky that this event occurred when it did, and not twenty
minutes later when we would have been airborne.

There was no way that this episode could have been predicted or prevented as
in those days only instructors had to hold a medical certificate which was
annually renewed. My own doctor just used to look at me and sign, as it was
the only time I ever visited his surgery. As it happens I am going to do a
bit of gliding this summer, and as I am now 74 not un-naturally the club
concerned has asked for a medical certificate in case I get to fly solo. My
doctor on this occasion did in fact do a fairly detailed check of my vital
functions but as he was basically doing only the same tests as those
required for renewal of a driving licence after an illness I don't really
feel that it tells us very much about my medical state.

Alistair Wright

On May 4, 5:22 am, Mike the Strike wrote:
On May 3, 5:21 pm, Frank Whiteley wrote:

http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621

To the best of my knowledge, pilot incapacitation through ill health
has not resulted in any serious injuries to anyone other than the
pilot of a single-seat glider.


Actually it likely has, but the pilot had the correct medical for his
role at the time:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/HCD.pdf

Quite a lot of information about British medical requirements and
Puchaz spinning in that report.


Dan

On May 4, 11:01 am, "Alistair Wright"
wrote:
"Frank Whiteley" wrote in message

oups.com...

http://www.kilkennyadvertiser.ie/index.php?aid=5621

There is really no correlation between medical status and certification as
far as I can see. It is well documented that very few accidents have been
attributed to a pre-existing medical condition.

Depends on the arena looked at I guess. In commercial aviation the
situation is similar to that of the millenium bug: after the date
rolled over and nothing failed, lots of people spouted that there
never was a problem and those billions of dollars should never have
been spent on the issue. Of course, it was purely *because* that money
had been spent that there were no issues.

So it is with commercial aviation medicals. The fact that few - not
none, but few - accidents are due to medical conditions points to the
fact that the commercial medical certification process works.
Cardiology is in fact very good at detecting pre-existing but
superficially asymptomatic conditions. However the tests are
expensive.

An ASN database query gives:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/....php?Event=FCI

Note that the last incident - the 2004 USAF crash - seems to have
parallels with the Kilkenny crash.


Dan


Dan