Pretty much everything that went through my mind has already been said, however, I’ll say 8 minutes to clear frost off a P210 seems hopelessly optimistic. We don’t get much frost here, but the couple of occasions I’ve had to clean the frost off a plane, it took me 45 minutes to do it to my satisfaction on a Grumman Cheetah which has less wing and tail surface area to clean.
Thanks WN, I was referring to private flights, so my reference to EU-OPS or its current replacement was incorrect. But is it correct that a valid W&B is required for private ops in FAA-land, and not in EASA-land?
I recall the reasoning on this was that the need for extra paper (the HPA) for say an EASA-reg PA46 is not a “restriction”. It is an additional requirement.
I recall a topic (elsewhere) where this was discussed in detail, and that was the conclusion. I think someone had some correspondence from the FAA confirming that, but I could be misremembering.
I don’t think that the Belgian’s were saying that this was illegal, but rather that it was complicated and they couldn’t get the info that they needed from the FAA to determine if it was legal or not.
I don’t think so. If I was a Belgian ramp checker, I would have asked for his license, he would have handed me the FAA card like in the above picture and it would say “Belgian license xxx, restrictions and limitations apply.”. Then I would ask him for the Belgian license which would be my area of expertise. I would quickly realize that it leaves a lot to be desired. Knowing a bit about airplanes I see this is a pure IFR traveling machine. Then I would call my colleagues at Belgacontrol and ask them to give me a list of movements of this aircraft which would show a lot of IFR flights with him as PIC. And voila, another confirmation he violated the law. Next I would look into the maintenance status of the aircraft.
I don’t think that that is the case. He has an FAA IR (at least that was my understanding from the report) so he is licensed to fly IFR in an N reg. I’m not so clear if his currency was appropriate or not.
For me, you got a very clear picture of the guy from the first three paragraphs of the report.
1. He hadn’t flown in 5 months, apart from one short VFR flight the day before. Five months is a long time for someone who only flys 50 hours a year. Some more currency before taking on a difficult IFR flight would be really advisable.
2. He did some sort of unusual turn to the left, which was questions by ATC. Instead of either apologising or explaining, he started off with an obvious lie.
The pilot answered the right hand brake had to be adjusted
3. He knew he was going to be flying a fully loaded and heavy aircraft the next day, yet he asked for it to be filled up
Thereafter he requested the refuelling service of the airport to fill up to the brim all the five fuel tanks with JET A1.
The pilot intended to fly 4 members of his family to Lyon (France) on 9 February and to fly back to Belgium the same day.
That’s all in the first three paragraphs.
Some accident reports you can learn from, and some, like this, you can just shake your head at.
The one thing that I noticed in it, which any pilot who flys a retractable should be aware of, is the dangers when other, minor things, go wrong. In this case, the guy had a gear up landing in the past. There was no need for it, but he got distracted by a generator failure, and forgot to lower the gear. Always be wary of the gear when you get distracted by some other problem!
[quotes fixed – each one has to be a separate paragraph for the bq. to work]
For example, I’m not up to speed on EU-OPS, but I don’t believe it’s necessary to carry a W&B schedule for each flight.
EU-OPS (now EASA-OPS) applies only to commercial operators. What they have to carry on board is regulated in their operating manual, which has to be approved by their national authority. I can’t imagine that any authority would approve an operation without W&B calculation on board, be it in paper or electronic form.
Having read quite some accident reports, I get the feeling that there is a relation between paperwork discrepancies and accident statistics.
The problem is that, to support this, you need to do some analysis on paperwork discrepancies on non-accident flights. For which, for obvious reasons, it would be difficult to get reliable information!
For example, I’m not up to speed on EU-OPS, but I don’t believe it’s necessary to carry a W&B schedule for each flight. But I understand it is in FAA-land. How many such flights would have this paperwork completed? Is every pilot who omits to fill out a W&B schedule for a loading that he has flown countless times more likely to be involved in an accident?
Clearly this guy’s paperwork discrepancies were in a different league from a W&B schedule (although it might have helped in the circumstances).
If that pilot’s license actually said “SEP” he should have done a standalone FAA PPL and be done with it all.
I could never understand somebody doing the full FAA IR (which is not at all easy – it was the hardest flying I have ever done) and not sorting out a standalone PPL at the same time. All your European training is allowable towards it.
Not that this helps right now, with EASA shafting everybody into getting EASA papers as well and, in his case, the EASA HPA. A lot of people of this pilot’s age and circumstances will probably throw it all in and just go back to VFR (and in some cases illegal IFR).
I get the feeling that there is a relation between paperwork discrepancies and accident statistics.
Yes – it indicates pilot+owner (in light GA it’s usually the same person) attitude to safety generally.
I recall the reasoning on this was that the need for extra paper (the HPA) for say an EASA-reg PA46 is not a “restriction”…
The restriction on his license are the three letters “SEP” with “P” standing for “piston”. His license is restricting him to fly piston engine powered aeroplanes. No gliders and no turbine power either.
I have looked into this subject and both are in some way right. It must be a restriction on the face of the licence. The fact a type rating is required in Europe is not relevant to the validity of a 61.75. My Australian one for example says Airplane Single Engine Land < 5700kg.
If the Europeans say Single Engine Piston, that is quite problematic. That is the same as the well agreed restriction Not Valid for Night Flying if it appears on the face of the licence.
Having read quite some accident reports, I get the feeling that there is a relation between paperwork discrepancies and accident statistics.
From a risk perspective it should not matter whether you have a SET printed on your licence or not, as long as you are trained and current. But in reality it seem that odds are against you if the paperwork is not in order…
Flying IFR without an instrument rating is not even a felony, so all they will be able to collect is a fine
I can’t find the reference (and it appears extremely rare) but recall a UK fine (IFR in Class A without an IR) in the region of 5k, so not insignificant.
However, if they go after you a long time after the event, you can probably nominate somebody else as the PIC. Many VFR pilots have said they flew with an IR in the RHS, in case the wx went bad. That RHS was probably not insured, but that is yet another “second order” thing to get into.
The Belgian pilot who busted the UK airshow (which had a TRA) a few years ago got 5k too, plus (IIRC) another 5k in costs. That (busting airshows) is UK’s most “dangerous” activity, in terms of fine sizes.
If I was a Belgian ramp checker,…
One problem with these ramp inspections is that they can’t do much about historical violations. If they suspect that he has been flying outside the privileges of his license they can only pass on that information to the CAA which then will have to collect evidence against him and pass that forward to the prosecutor who then may or may not go after the pilot… Flying IFR without an instrument rating is not even a felony, so all they will be able to collect is a fine which will not warrant the necessary effort.
But what the ramp inspectors can do is hold him on the ground until he meets the necessary requirements for his intended flight. Which means that on this day he would not have flown.
