Accident near Dunkerque.

[teddybAIR]

and in the past I've flown formation in IMC too.

Euwkeej?!? Are you aware that you've just posted on a public forum that your Pilot in Command flagrantly ignored to apply the General Rules and Procedures as stipulated in paragraph 3.1.10.1 of the Enroute section of the Belgian AIP which clearly states that formation flying is only allowed in VMC!!!

I think this is exactly what tolipanebas means when he says that you should be aware not to overestimate your competencies. How can you ever safely maintain a formation in IMC?! You can have the illusion that you have the competencies - probably caused by the classic human drive to show off (hey, I am "in hetzelfde bedje ziek") - but that doesn't mean that you actually possess those competencies.

I hope you are not a pilot and that you made a mistake by posting that you joined a formation flight in IMC (either because i misunderstood you or because you don't know the exact definition of IMC) as few things make me more angry then fellow pilots who brag about how they ignored this or that procedure and had the time of their lives while endangering the lives of others...this is on of the major contributing factors of the degree of sceptiscism towards general aviation in Belgium. Let's not compromise the last bits of class G airspace that are left in Belgium, shall we?

[tolipanebas]

Now, let's not turn this into a game of showing off and wanting to be the best pilot, shall we?

I think we all agree nobody should be doing things outside his or her training envelope, whether that means flying in formation, doing a looping or shooting ILS approaches as there are rules and regulations governing all of that which you may be completely unaware of if doing it just randomly... not to talk about the risk of physical injury (or worse) you put yourself and others through!

Personally, as you all know, I hold an ATPL with type rating and I have logged more than 10,000 hours of total time on various types, yet I definitely wouldn't even think about doing manufacturer's demonstration flights with the plane I am current on for instance, despite flying it every single day, so somehow I hope you can all see the inconsistency in private pilots with just a few hundreds of hours having no problems with doing equally challenging maneuvers in the light aircraft they fly in only occasionally...

I am definitely not Buck Danny, far from even, yet am I pretty sure I won't meet him at the bar of the local flying club either. All too many members there seem to think however they can fly even better than this fictional character!

Remember these sayings:

There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

another one

A superior pilot uses his superior judgment to avoid situations which require the use of his superior skill.

[Propwash]

Euwkeej?!? Are you aware that you've just posted on a public forum that your Pilot in Command flagrantly ignored to apply the General Rules and Procedures as stipulated in paragraph 3.1.10.1 of the Enroute section of the Belgian AIP which clearly states that formation flying is only allowed in VMC!!!

I didn't wrote I've flown IMC formation within Belgian Airspace
BTW you use IMC formation only to get on top or below clouds and yes I'm Instrument Rated.

Off topic: same story for IMC partial panel spin recovery training.

Hours doesn't always mean experience.
There are born aviators who soloed within 5 'logbook' hours and passed the skill test at minimun required, while others are not even solo at 25 hours plus and don't have their ticket at 80 hours!

BTW I'm not Buck Danny either, but I've 'quite' a bit of formation flying experience, including different A/C type formation take-offs, low level, IMC etc etc.

[teddybAIR]

I didn't wrote I've flown IMC formation within Belgian Airspace
BTW you use IMC formation only to get on top or below clouds and yes I'm Instrument Rated.

Please do elaborate!

[Propwash]

Please do elaborate!

A/C ferry (pre GPS era) to get VMC (VFR) on-top or down.

If you're well prepared and trained, it isn't that scary.
The visibility is seldom a problem (just stick together).

As a Civilian I've never done STARs, IAPs or night formation flights, but in the military it is common practice.

[Gliderpilot]

Maybe I should have told that I have 400h+ in gliders. I did my first solo (in a taildragger) after less than 2h of instruction. By the end of the PPL training, I also did some hours of aerobatics training, just to get the 35h total.
All the formation flying instructions I have got from (former) military instructors (and they told me when I was fine doing it alone), including formation take-off and landings.
Being young certainly helps.

[regi]

Maybe I should have told that I have 400h+ in gliders. I did my first solo (in a taildragger) after less than 2h of instruction. By the end of the PPL training, I also did some hours of aerobatics training, just to get the 35h total.
All the formation flying instructions I have got from (former) military instructors (and they told me when I was fine doing it alone), including formation take-off and landings.
Being young certainly helps.

Being young helps to feed the human transplant programs during/after the weekends due to recklessness behaviour.
Being young means young males have to pay a much higher car insurance than older people.

[Gliderpilot]

That really is on-topic, isn't it. I thought this to be a serious thread, but you just proved me wrong.
It (again) ends up in bashing other people, like the rest of this forum.
Goodbye!

[regi]

That really is on-topic, isn't it. I thought this to be a serious thread, but you just proved me wrong.
It (again) ends up in bashing other people, like the rest of this forum.
Goodbye!

it was you who wrote this:
Being young certainly helps.
And if somebody reacts on it you call it bashing.

It is clear to me that you do not have a brother who died because of reckless behaviour. It is clear to me that you have never seen multiple human bodies in different stages of dismemberment . It is clear to me that you have not seen the result of aviation incidents - as I have as a first hand witness.
http://oudnieuws.web-log.nl/oud_nieuws/ ... gtuig.html
Do you know how a human body looks after a parachute incident ( start digging if the soil is soft or start collecting if it is rock) ?
A ULM crash ? Have you helped to pull tubes out of a body, to be able to put the body on a stretcher ?
A propeller plane crash: human parts, including intestins, fly 100 meter away. By-standers are covered in stuff that you only see if you are a surgeon.
Even paramedics are shocked by those horrible scenes that they need psychiatric help years after the confrontation.
I say: Being mature certainly helps.
And don't go away for just 1 posting. Slamming the door behind you because of 1 remark of an old guy would be a show of...immaturity.
Suggestion: would you stay if I leave as compensation? Or if the moderator gives me a suspension of a month or so ? Just talk, I am listening. Make a suggestion.

[teddybAIR]

Can anybody enlighten me on the differences in training requirements between a PPL license and a ULM license? The reason I ask is that often the only different with other GA aircraft is the gross weight, while ULM performance occasionally even exceeds that of other GA aircraft.

So the question is: is there a difference? How is it justified?

[jan_olieslagers]

The difference is huge.
ULM: no minimal volume of hours to be flown, no legal obligation for ground school, theoretical knowledge tested at the same time and by the same examinator as the flying skills test (with an exception for air law: that is the same multiple choice test as for PPL'ers).
The explanation is that, at the time the ultralight regulation was defined, ULM were far less performant than they are today, and were not used as travelling machines as happens today.
Today, everybody is aware of the problem; but no immediate action is being taken to my knowledge on the legal side. I suspect they are waiting for the upcoming ELSA ruling, which should cover the high performance planes classified as ultralights today. On the other hand the Belgian ultralight federation is at least actively thinking about possible improvements, I expect them to bring up some measures but it will not be possible to impose them for lack of a legal backing.
And if you think Belgian law is lax, then take a look in France, where today one can obtain an ultralight license that NEVER expires. In Belgium, at least we must renew the license periodically as it depends on a periodic medical check (mine expires in a couple of weeks); and at least they make sure we keep up some kind of currency by checking a minimum number of hours flown.
Then again, US'an ultralight ruling is content with a driver's license yes yes! But US'an ultralights are limited to the original concept of ultralight flying.

And by the way, several of today's "ultralights" perform WAY better than your average PPL trainer, be it a C152 or a Piper Tomahawk or whatever. Mind you I said "perform better" which is quite separate from "behave better" !

[teddybAIR]

Thanks for the clarification!

My personal opinion is that the minimum required flight hours are an essential part to keep your license current. I'm convinced that the minimum requirements for PPL holders are even too low. I realise that higher requirements would make this sport less accessible - the same goes for me - but with the existing regulations, it is possible not to fly for more than a year, as long as you log at least 12 hrs TT every 2 years. Based on my own - limited - experience - I have to conclude that someone who hasn't flown for 12 months cannot claim to be current. I would never perform a solo flight if I wouldn't have flown at least a couple of hours during the past 6 or so months. Actually, the governing rules already acknowledge the need for currency, as they include the so called 90-day rule for flights with passengers, stating that you need to have performed at least 3 landings during the last 90 days in order to be allowed to fly passengers.

And by the way, several of today's "ultralights" perform WAY better than your average PPL trainer, be it a C152 or a Piper Tomahawk or whatever.

Indeed, that is exactly why I asked the question. It would be the equivalent of a less stringent drivers license for people who drive a Lotus Elise, merely based on the fact that it has a lower gross weight

[jan_olieslagers]

At a recent event, there was much support for a recommendation for every pilot to check-fly with an instructor periodically, once per year or so. And this would be a good thing for PPL'ers too, I believe.

As for currency: it is better than nothing to check the number of hours flown, but it does not say very much. Compare a pilot who has accumulated 200 hours in a year of ferrying between say the UK and Spain, to another who only has flown 40; but half of those were in the training circuit, with engine-out exercises, sideslips and what not. Given a choice, I'd fly with this last person!

[teddybAIR]

Exactly, a periodical check ride or skill test would be the only instrument that can probe whether your knowledge and competences are still sufficient. Personally, I would not protest should regulations require me to fly a periodical skill test...on the contrary: if my performance would be below standard, I would want an objective person to inform me about it. After all, I wouldn't want to be faced with an engine failure on take-off when it was 12 months ago since I last flew that procedure!

[Passenger]

Update 1:

The final report has been published in August 2014:
pdf 2,8 Mb:
http://mobilit.belgium.be/sites/default ... s/10-6.pdf

- - -

Update 2:

A French court today has sentenced the pilot of the Cessna 172 to 18 months (with probation) and a 20.000 € fine for involuntary manslaughter. The Flemish newspaper Het Nieuwsblad reports that the pilot has never contacted the relatives of the victims to say "I'm sorry".

"...De Franse rechter gaf Norbert F. 18 maanden cel met uitstel en een boete van 20.000 euro voor de fatale botsing tussen twee vliegtuigjes net over de Belgische grens in 2010 waarbij Elke Vangampelaere (24) en Sam Jansseune (17) het leven lieten. De Franse rechter veroordeelde amateurpiloot Norbert F. (76) uit De Panne gisteren tot een celstraf van 18 maanden met uitstel en een boete van 20.000 euro voor de onvrijwillige doodslag van jonge pilote Elke Vangampelaere (24) uit Oostende en haar passagier Sam Jansseune (17) uit Oostduinkerke. Volgens de rechtbank had hij schuld aan het fatale vliegtuigongeval op 2 oktober 2010 in het luchtruim boven het Franse Les Moëres door nalatigheid bij het besturen van zijn vliegtuig. Het openbaar ministerie had 2 jaar cel gevorderd terwijl Norbert F. de vrijspraak vroeg. Annemie Lahousse, de moeder van Sam, zou graag verder gaan in haar rouwproces. “Deze zaak sleept al meer dan vijf jaar aan”, zegt ze. “Deze veroordeling was voor mij niet nodig, enkel het woord ‘sorry’ volstond. Wat mij diep raakt, is dat die man nooit een rouwkaart of een blijk van medeleven heeft getoond. Als hij niet schuldig is, hoeft hij zich toch niet te schamen? Het verlies van twee mensenlevens laat hem koud. Hij zit enkel in met de vergoeding van zijn oud vliegtuig.”..."

Source:
http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160210_02121719

[Didymus]

I find it strange that you limit yourself to the translate the "sorry part". Criminal prosecution (luckily) does not depend on whether the culprit says sorry nor on whether the relatives on the victims require this.

[Passenger]

I find it strange that you limit yourself to the translate the "sorry part". Criminal prosecution (luckily) does not depend on whether the culprit says sorry nor on whether the relatives on the victims require this.

I did not limit my translation unfair. My translation about the verdict is 25 words, 141 symbols. My translation about the relatives’ comment is about the same: 21 words, 128 symbols. What else could I have added: that the French prosecutor asked for 24 months in prison? That the French judge says he’s responsible for the crash? Quite obvious, if one is condemned isn’t it?

I also don't think that my two phrases link the severeness of the sentence to the absence of a sorry.

And finally: the report in Het Nieuwsblad (two articles: one public, one subscribers only) is 25% about the verdict and 75% about the grief of the relatives.

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160210_02121719

http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20160210_02120888

[Didymus]

No need to feel attacked, really. In fact, it tells more about how Het Nieuwsblad reports about such dramatic events than about you. Your second sentence was perceived by me as containing the critical, "new" information.