Investigators Say Student Pilots Should Be Flagged

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
Not IMHO a bad idea really. When I was training and flew to controlled
airspace for XC flights it was suggested that I mention I was a student
and
they did seem to slow things down a little.

I can see how a uniform way of doing this might be helpful both in
controlled and uncontrolled airspace. Example, "Bumfigle Tower, Cessna
Student 1234A, ...."

From AVWeb

Britain's Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) is recommending that
student pilots on solo flights be identified by a radio call-sign prefix
so
air traffic controllers can take into account their limited experience and
knowledge. The recommendation came from the investigation of a crash on
July
19, 2006, that killed a 16-year-old student who had logged 15 hours and
was
on his second solo flight. Just before he touched down at Southend
Airport,
a controller ordered him to turn left and climb to pattern height so an
overtaking Piper Meridian could land. It's believed he did not reconfigure
the aircraft and apply enough power for the unorthodox go-around and the
Cessna he was flying stalled and crashed a short time later. The
four-person
investigation team concluded pilot Sam Cross was put "in a situation for
which his training and experience had not prepared him" after being
"instructed to carry out an unfamiliar and nonstandard manoeuvre," the
AAIB
report said. Adding to the mix was the fact that Cross was returning to
the
field after just eight minutes in the air because haze was reducing
visibility. His instructor was watching from the ground as the order to
deviate from the runway heading was complied with and he noted the nose-up
attitude of the Cessna before it stalled and spiralled into a park.
Investigators determined the flaps were at 20 degrees, the carb heat was
on
and the engine was turning at 900 rpm at the time of the crash. Cross was
the youngest pilot ever to be killed in a plane crash in Britain.


In may very well be a good idea and, as several contributors have pointed
out, it is commonly done by both civil and military flight schools.

However, in my none too humble opinion, it has nothing whatsoever to do with
the cited accident--in which the student pilot's status was presumably well
known. And, of course, it is phrased as though someone would like to see it
become a regulation.

(rant temporarily witheld)

The recommendation came from the investigation of a crash on
July
19, 2006, that killed a 16-year-old student who had logged 15 hours and
was
on his second solo flight. Just before he touched down at Southend
Airport,


In may very well be a good idea and, as several contributors have pointed
out, it is commonly done by both civil and military flight schools.

However, in my none too humble opinion, it has nothing whatsoever to do
with
the cited accident--in which the student pilot's status was presumably
well
known. And, of course, it is phrased as though someone would like to see
it
become a regulation.

(rant temporarily witheld)



I agree. When I made student solos to unfamiliar controlled fields I used
'student' after my call. It wasn't required, but I felt better knowing that
the controller might think twice before handing me anything unusual.

At my home field, which is uncontrolled, a high percentage of the traffic is
student traffic and I don't think the extra chatter of 'Student' in all the
pattern calls would help much.

Hi,

In article ,
Peter wrote:
However, in my none too humble opinion, it has nothing whatsoever to do with
the cited accident--in which the student pilot's status was presumably well
known.

I'm not too sure of this. If you read the full report, I think it's said
that there was a change of ATC personnel between the time the student took
off, and when he landed.

I could be mis-remembering of course.

Andy

Andy Hawkins wrote in
:

Hi,

In article ,
Peter wrote:
However, in my none too humble opinion, it has nothing whatsoever to do
with the cited accident--in which the student pilot's status was
presumably well known.

I'm not too sure of this. If you read the full report, I think it's said
that there was a change of ATC personnel between the time the student
took off, and when he landed.

I have to agree with Peter on this one.

A specific set of unique and random circumstances caused an unfortunate, but
unique and random accident. There is no call to start create regulations to
protect from this specific set of unique and random circumstances from ever
happening again.

The change of ATC personnel is yet another contributing but random
circumstance that is not likely to be repeated with any frequency demanding a
regulation.

"Andy Hawkins" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I'm not too sure of this. If you read the full report, I think it's said
that there was a change of ATC personnel between the time the student took
off, and when he landed.

I could be mis-remembering of course.

Andy

My point, which Judah phrased much better, was simply that "stuff happens"
and it makes no sense to add more regulations and complexity every time an
accident or incident indicates a possible gap in the rules--or to try to
find or enact a crime that might fit every situation. All of us will die;
but, if we expend less effort fretting about unusual causes, most of us
would live more complete and enjoyable lives before our death.

However, I did only scan the report on line, which never results in my best
performance; so I have now printed it. I have a rather long gap in my
schedule later today, and will read it in its entirety.

Peter

Hi,

In article ,
Peter wrote:
My point, which Judah phrased much better, was simply that "stuff happens"
and it makes no sense to add more regulations and complexity every time an
accident or incident indicates a possible gap in the rules--or to try to
find or enact a crime that might fit every situation. All of us will die;
but, if we expend less effort fretting about unusual causes, most of us
would live more complete and enjoyable lives before our death.

While that's true, and adding more and more 'rules' isn't necessarily going
to help, it can't be harmful to have a standardised method for inexperienced
(not just student) pilots to identify themselves as such to ATC and other
pilots.

'Heathrow Tower, Tyro G-ANDY base' isn't much more to say, and can convey
this inexperience without too much extra effort.

Military fields already have a mechanism for doing this (the 'Tyro' above is
the military term). Extending this to civilian air traffic seems as good a
way as any to me.

I do agree though, there appear to have been a lot of small isolated factors
in this accident that just all came together to make its consequences so
bad.

Andy

"Andy Hawkins" wrote in message
...
Hi,

In article ,
Peter wrote:
My point, which Judah phrased much better, was simply that "stuff
happens"
and it makes no sense to add more regulations and complexity every time
an
accident or incident indicates a possible gap in the rules--or to try to
find or enact a crime that might fit every situation. All of us will
die;
but, if we expend less effort fretting about unusual causes, most of us
would live more complete and enjoyable lives before our death.

While that's true, and adding more and more 'rules' isn't necessarily
going
to help, it can't be harmful to have a standardised method for
inexperienced
(not just student) pilots to identify themselves as such to ATC and other
pilots.

'Heathrow Tower, Tyro G-ANDY base' isn't much more to say, and can convey
this inexperience without too much extra effort.

Military fields already have a mechanism for doing this (the 'Tyro' above
is
the military term). Extending this to civilian air traffic seems as good a
way as any to me.

I do agree though, there appear to have been a lot of small isolated
factors
in this accident that just all came together to make its consequences so
bad.


How about squawking "1201" for student pilots?

Hi,

In article ,
Ken wrote:
How about squawking "1201" for student pilots?

That would only work in airspace where you'd normally squawk VFR. Certainly
around the airfield I'm learning at, we don't.

Andy

Andy Hawkins writes:

That would only work in airspace where you'd normally squawk VFR. Certainly
around the airfield I'm learning at, we don't.

What do you squawk instead?

"Andy Hawkins" wrote

I do agree though, there appear to have been a lot of small isolated
factors
in this accident that just all came together to make its consequences so
bad.

I hate to speak ill of the dead, but wow! How far away from ready are you
to solo, if all it takes is a distraction to keep you from advancing the
throttle from idle, when you are not trying to land?

It should be so automatic, that distractions should not be an issue. When
things were not happening (like climbing) it should not be hard to notice
that your engine was making no noise, right?

I am truly sorry this young man died. It sucks that things piled up on him,
and non standard procedures took place. Part of training has to be
expecting the unexpected, but above all, fly the plane. That did not
happen.

I think that he was not ready to solo. More drilling on unusual situations
needed to take place, without a doubt. The big thing that needed to be
taught is fly the plane. Always. Without fail. No matter what.
--
Jim in NC