Air crash investigators, can you give me your unbiased opinion?

I would like you to review the crash report; <Cessna A152, G-BHAC 03-07.pdf > and from the information tell me if you agree with the findings.

In particular I would like you to take into consideration the following facts:

a) The pilot aborted a flight hours earlier via a different route, due to bad weather.

b) The pilot was flying the return leg of a flight made some hours earlier.

c) The leg was quite short.

d) If you have access to a more detailed chart you can see the terrain from the airport of departure to the turning point on the coast is straight forward.

e) There was a passenger in the r/h seat (obstructing visibility somewhat)

f) The line on the chart which investigators ASSUME the pilot intended to fly would have taken him directly towards / over high ground which was a route not necessary to fly (certainly with a low cloud base.

The pilot was blamed for the accident which resulted in the death of his good friend. I have asked how the investigators arrived at their conclusion without receiving any satisfactory reply. I am not convinced with the results of the investigation and this is another step I am taking in order to have more light shone on this crash.


This was not a US accident, I turned to you as you have more experience. Please DON'T answer if it is too much trouble to read the report and you are only after points!

Update 2:


Thanks Ben, I finally have someone with whom I can exchange ideas, maybe even facts.

I feel not all information was available to the investigators due to what I would call complacency on the part of the 'system'. Let me present a scenario:

The line on the map was the inbound leg - better weather - flight over some high ground monitored off port side.

After the aborted return flight the pilot decided to return by Colwyn Bay (where he had flown in from some hours earlier)! Being cautious he would have flown more northerly heading towards Bangor and skirted round the mountains.

During the climb out the pilot was probably chatting to his friend while keeping an eye on his course. On leveling out he discovered high ground ahead and unsuccessfully tried to take avoiding action.

The leg is about 28 miles and if you use the line on the chart as his route you can say the aircraft was not far off course when it crashed however if you believe for one moment the pilot

Update 3:


Ben I have extended hoping to hear from you again. Are you the man? The authority refuses to give me contact details or have the investigator contact me! I think my reasoning has some credibility!

7 Answers

  • Ben
    Lv 6
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    The Minimum Safe Alttude (MSA) for the Colwyn Bay-Caernarfon leg of the route was noted as 4,900 ft on the flight log and they were flying at 1,970 ft. They were attempting to fly VFR with a cloud base of 3,000ft which isn't the smartest thing to do.

    There was also an eye witness that heard the aircraft fly closely overhead but was unable to see it due to the clouds that heard the aircraft prop blade rise in pitch prior to impact.

    All of the flight controls were intact and operating freely other than some slight damage that occurred on impact. The engine was running at a high power setting noted by the rotational scoring of the alternator and propeller.

    This is a pretty simple crash to investigate and everything points toward pilot error.

    The pictures make it even easier to see. The passenger died after his diaphragm was ruptured and his internal organs shifted up into his chest cavity effectively suffocating him.

    Source(s): I deal with this crap every once in a while.
  • 10 years ago

    Can you clarify how or why you disagree with the conclusion? The pilot knew he was flying below the MSA for the area and continued into conditions of deteriorating visibility. Controlled flight into terrain due to restricted visibility is almost always pilot error, assuming no mechanical failures or the like. This seems like a classic case of VFR into IMC.

    You raise lots of little questions about details where the investigators admittedly had to make assumptions. But I can't see how any of those things could have mattered. It is not the job of the crash investigators to answer every possible question a person might ask about the crash. Their job is to figure out the circumstances of the accident. It is also not their responsibility to find legal fault. A finding of pilot error as the cause does not really "blame" the pilot.

    I sense that you have some personal connection to this crash. And I feel bad. Every time anyone drives a car or flies a plane, they take a very real risk that a single bad decision or a second of inattention could result in a loss of life that is their fault and that will haunt them for the rest of their life. Understand that the technical finding of responsibility doesn't mean that the pilot was a bad person. It doesn't mean the pilot didn't take his responsibilities seriously. It means that under pressure, he made a bad decision. It means he is human.

    The plane was going where the pilot was telling it to go, and it flew into the ground.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    From the Registration # you're in the UK? The NTSB in the US doesn't revise it's findings, or hasn't that I know of in the last 50 or so years. You will probably have to accept that the aircraft was flown into known high ground while in less than VFR conditions. I'm sure the UK isn't any more flexible in it's findings than the US.

    Source(s): Worked 2 airline crashes as company rep.
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    the weather report states that the wind was 330 deg, 15 knots, /not mentioning the low ceiling 1000 ft./

    if you bother to see the map, this guy was attempting to fly the rolling hills... there, he might encounter downdraft from the wind, robust enough to put a guy with hundred something hours who was crawling under 1000 ft AMSL into unrecoverable descent. the sudden pitch in RPM, remember?

    put simply.. we have hills with maximum elevation of about 2200 ft here, that in favourable wind conditions enable light aircraft such as gliders to do the wave soaring. however, what goes UP, must go down.

    this could have been contributing to the simple inadverent IMC entering.

    Source(s): not an crash investigator. crash locator here. SAR helicopter pilot.
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    Vmc into Imc,bad decision here.Remember that accident investigation is to find probable cause,

    at least in the US.This means that acidents are always still open for change,if proven otherwise.

  • 10 years ago

    Based on the met report, the pilot continued VFR into IMC and impacted the ground. What and/or why did you disagree with the report.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Good luck in fighting the NTSB for more information. They are the biggest con artists in aviation. They claimed TWA Flight 800 was downed by wiring sending electrical current through the fuel tanks, causing an explosion. Bullsh*t. If that was correct, then every Boeing 747 would have been grounded and forced to have their wiring rerouted or substantially insulated. This is the only Boeing 747 where this occurred. All eyewitnesses claimed to have seen a streak of light, yes a missile, fly up and hit the aircraft. No third parties were ever allowed to perform chemical composition tests on the aircraft metal or the seats. Why? Because the National Transportation Safety Board is told whenever a flight is taken down by terrorism, it is to be predetermined pilot error or mechanical failure.

    Look at all the other cover ups the government is hiding. Like EgyptAir Flight 990 off the coast of Massachusetts... the Muslim Egyptian pilot screamed "Tawkalt ala Allah!" (I rely on God!) before he took the yokes and downed the plane into the ocean. It's on the black box tapes. The instrument panels clearly show the pilot was in total control the entire time.

    In Texas, 1500 high power semi automatic assault rifles were unlawfully sold to Mexican drug cartels with the full knowledge and intentional unlawful act of Attorney General Eric Holder. One of the guns recently killed a border patrol agent. The gun dealers all told the Attorney Generals office that this was illegal and they should not sell. But Holder told them to sell anyway. Now Obama's boy Holder is refusing to cooperate with detailed information and emails that were subpoena to him. He's now in contempt of court. The government can cover up any bullsh*t they want.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.