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, 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:
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

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 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

IMHO, there is an ethical distinction that needs to be made here. Pilot
incapacitation in a single seat glider is indeed not likely to hurt anyone
but the pilot. Except, in Frank's case, where it may lead to additional
regulatory burden on others. (Though one might imagine additional
scenarios.)

Where it REALLY crosses the line is when a medically unfit pilot assumes PIC
responsibilities in a two-seater with a non-pilot on board. This would
include an instructor who flies with a pre-solo student. The passenger and
student are totally reliant on the rated pilot for their safety and have
every reason to expect that their pilot meets high medical standards.

Unfortunately, I know of several instructors who have lost their medicals
for very serious conditions yet continue to fly (Legally in the US) with
pre-solo students. It would seem to me that clubs who have authorized these
instructors to instruct in club aircraft incur some liability here.

Bill Daniels


"Mike the Strike" wrote in message
oups.com...
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

Actually, even a solo pilot is putting someone else at risk: the guy
flying the tug.

If you want to fly while medically unfit, take a winch launch.

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)