Ibra wrote:
How about the reverse he was described as “very good pilot”, “very cautious pilot”, “very through”, “very careful”…then found on a hill doing IMC bellow MSA?
It happens. An article in the August 1993 edition of “Flying” magazine called this “SLOJ” (sudden loss of judgement). A couple of sources of “slojy” behaviour the article pointed out was “the Proximity Rule” (I certainly have noticed how it seems that there’s a disproportionate number of weather related accidents that happen within 5 minutes flying time of the destination, in other words normally careful pilots can suffer a loss of judgement when their goal is so near. Had they taken off and 5 minutes later it was evident the weather wasn’t good enough, they would have turned around and landed. But they are just 5 minutes from their destination on a 3 hour flight, they might just go for it.
I know I have fallen for that one. Of course, I actually made it, but in hindsight, my decision to press on for the last 5 minutes of the flight instead of diverting to the airfield maybe 10 minutes behind me was certainly a poor one, when I arrived at one end of the runway with a deluge arriving at the opposite end (and said storm required people to hang onto parked aircraft as it had a very strong outflow) but the lure of your destination being in visual range, and very close, is an incredibly strong one.
I have thought long and hard about this moral dilemma and many posts make IMO excellent yet contradictory points.
My take on this is that the OP had already reported to the CFI of the club and therefore he has done his moral duty so to speak.
What the club does with that information is their “moral” problem.
At the club here, for instance, the CFI might have had a quiet word with the pilot. Perhaps s/he would have suggested writing up a REX.
Perhaps s/he would have suggested maybe a flight together or with an instructor.
The aim is surely to avoid for both,club and pilot, an accident, especially a fatal one.
If the CFI and pilot cannot come to an understanding, the club always has the choice of whether or not that pilot should still be permitted to fly one of their aircraft.
Silvaire wrote:
I think there is little chance of an investigation of a ‘club’ type light aircraft accident being pursued to the level of detail being suggested here, if it were it would be a waste of time, and that the potential impact of this type of accident investigation on systemic pilot licensing issues is zero
That depends. 10 years ago or something I read a report from the NTSB/FAA about accidents in experimental aircraft. I have written about it before, with links and all, but don’t remember the links now. The conclusion was that additional training was needed for anyone going from certified to experimental. The EAA has taken this very seriously, and today most kit manufacturers offer transitional training in their “package” among with other pilot training.
It’s stuff like that one can pick up. Over representation of certain type of accidents or certain aircraft, or among certain pilots etc, or any combination. It’s essentially like shooting. There will always be a spread of the bullets, and there is little anyone can do about it. But if that spread is off the target entirely, then something is wrong, and something can be done to fix it. It’s really all about (in training) to stop doing things that has no effect or the opposite effect, and start doing things that helps.
For instance, if you have flown C-172 exclusively, you will get used to the stall horn. You will even use it deliberately or unconsciously as a cue in your flying, even though a C-172 simply mushes instead of stalling in the correct sense. It’s super safe. Most older and non certified planes have no such stall horn, and the stall may be vicious. Going from a 172 to a Safir for instance, and you are in for a big surprise. Where the 172 will start owling, then mushing gently, the Safir will do nothing until it flicks 180 degree and fall out of the sky. The difference here isn’t about piloting skills or competence in the correct sense, but mindset. You simply need a different mindset when flying a Safir (as well as lots of other planes). With that mindset however, a Safir is no more dangerous than a 172. One has to wonder, for GA, how wise is it to get your PPL in a C-172, if you are not going to fly a C-172, but something else? For commercial aviation it makes sense, because heavy jets have all kinds of stick shakers and whistles and bells.
According to you, it’s all piloting error (poor competence by the pilot). I would rather suggest it’s a rather insane and systematic error in the way people are taught to fly, if it’s a GA pilot they are aiming for.
This gets a bit nutty. What are you going to report all your friends to the Police when you caught them texting and driving? I mean it was a lifesaving intervention when I told them to stop!
Private flying is far different than transport aircraft flying. You are responsible for your own decisions and risk, and unfortunately free to kill yourself if you get it wrong. Same for skiing, motorcycling, climbing, and many other activities.
I don’t think anything needs to be reported here. Unless a defect is found in the wreckage it will go down as unknown or pilot error.
This being said, having flown with some our lesser skilled brethen. I am more careful whom I accept rides from in unfamiliar aircraft now!
Mooney_Driver wrote:
According to EASA; there is a thing that incidents need to be reported. An incident such as the OP quotes as his possible motivation to let the TSB in on it, should have been reported, but obviously was not reported to the EASA tool or the CAA but rather internally. In a normal circumstance therefore, an incident where a life saving intervention was necessary would necessitate a report of this type to be made.
(my bold added)
I wonder if any private pilot has even reported any such intervention? Does your friend report you if you screw up a spin recovery and he does it instead? It’s a completely absurd practice, if it exists, when applied to private flying.
Thinking about this, there is one thing which comes to my mind.
According to EASA; there is a thing that incidents need to be reported. An incident such as the OP quotes as his possible motivation to let the TSB in on it, should have been reported, but obviously was not reported to the EASA tool or the CAA but rather internally.
In a normal circumstance therefore, an incident where a life saving intervention was neccessary would necessitate a report of this type to be made. If so, there is no need to post-accident report such an occurrence to the TSB, as they will have access to the database.
However, if such an incident has not been reported, it may well be relevant to the investigation. In such a case, a report to the TSB may be the reasonable way to do it.
To make one thing also clear: We are not talking about “opinion” about pilot’s qualifications. The OP is talking about an INCIDENT which he regards as factually sufficiently important to warrant the attention of the TSB. Opinion has nothing to do in an accident investigation, at least not at the source level, which is all about facts.
So if you are considering to voice an opinion about someone who was involved in an accident, I am fully with those who say shut up and let dead men rest.
If however you are aware of a relevant incident, it may be very helpful to the TSB to know about it.
You guys are nuts 
Fatal light aircraft accidents happen almost every day, almost 400 fatalities in the US alone in 2018 (or so says the internet) . I think there is little chance of an investigation of a ‘club’ type light aircraft accident being pursued to the level of detail being suggested here, if it were it would be a waste of time, and that the potential impact of this type of accident investigation on systemic pilot licensing issues is zero. By my observation what’s typically done on puddle jumper accidents is to determine if something broke on the plane that might prompt an AD. If that’s deemed unlikely, the other potential causes revolve around pilot error. If pilot error is determined to be the cause, the government investigation is done.
Silvaire wrote:
How do you think an accident investigation would go if every unauthorized, unqualified individual rushed to interject their opinion? It would be childishly silly, wouldn’t it?
Would it? I don’t think that will ever happen though, for several reasons.
Silvaire wrote:
The cause of the accident proposed by the OP is incompetence, and that opinion based on no current data is all they have to offer. It is valueless
Not if it falls in line with the impression they get from all the other facts and people they interview. On the other hand, if it’s completely opposite of what all the other information tell, then it is likely to be very valueless. Only the investigators will know, for everyone else it’s pure speculation. If the last version that turns out to be true though, then you will probably feel like a complete a$$ 
But I mean, if you can live with that, then I see no “moral issues” here.
Silvaire wrote:
If the cause of the accident was the PIC failure to maintain control that will be evident without gossipy input from the uninvolved and unauthorized, and will be documented in the report.
But then the question will be why? This is frequently more relevant than the direct cause. Is it lack of training? Is there some problem with the aircraft design? Individual aircraft? Weather? Was the pilot being distracted? By something that happened during the flight or in his/her life? Or does the pilot have a history of being careless?
You will see this line of reasoning in lots and lots of accident reports. I specifically remember one where a bizjet attempted takeoff with the gust lock set. (Everyone died.) By checking flight recorder data for several previous flights it was determined that the crew consistently disregarded SOPs and checklists.
Do you feel that this information was irrelevant? That the investigators should have been satisfied when they found the direct cause of the accident? In light GA we don’t have flight recorders so the only way to know something of the pilots’ habits would be to ask other people. Would that be “gossipy”?
