Dosent make good reading

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Glasgow, Lanarkshire and West | McRae flying licence had expired

Saw that last night (read V early this morning) and agree it wasn't a good read

This is nothing new, it came out days (if not hours after the crash)

It is just a technicality, he had a licence to fly it - it had just lapsed by a few months, but unfortunately in today's society thats enough of a reason to point the finger of blame.

The parents of six year-old Ben Porcelli, who died, said it was evident that "unnecessary risks" were taken.

FFS that is what he did all his life!!

Just because his license was lapsed does not mean he was any less skilled, and it seems as if the helicopter ****ed up (read: design subtlety...)

If his licence was up to date, and he had some hours on the type of helicopter, he would have been aware of it's characteristics and possibly not crashed.

Surely if the manufacturer knew about the problem, they should have recalled it?

FFS that is what he did all his life!!

Evidently his luck ran out, a lesson for us all.

This is nothing new, it came out days (if not hours after the crash)

It is just a technicality, he had a licence to fly it - it had just lapsed by a few months, but unfortunately in today's society thats enough of a reason to point the finger of blame.

The parents of six year-old Ben Porcelli, who died, said it was evident that "unnecessary risks" were taken.

FFS that is what he did all his life!!

Agreed but unfortunately it may lay the Family open to a law suit from the parents of the young lad who died

Read this at lunch time and does not make good reading looks like the papers had nothing to write about so dedicated 10 pages in the scottish sun to tell about Colin.

The big problem is it is all speculation as what caused the accident.

Some say it was pilot error

Others that it was a fault with the helicopter

there is also the theory that one of the passengers who was filming it dropped the camcorder and it jammed a control

One thing that is a fact is the real reason will never come out, the helicopter didn't have a flight recorder 'black box' and all the rest is speculation as to what 'may' of happened.

The only people who may of known are unfortunately no longer with us.

the way the papers made mcrae out was that he was trying to be fighter pilot!

Surely if you have kids on board you would not endanger them??

His licence may have been out of date but that doesn't mean he couldn't fly that particular machine - it merely means that a piece of paper was out of date.

How many of us were able to drive or ride a bike before we had an official licence for example? and how many of us can operate other machinery that we don't need a licence for (note I'm not condoning such acts just pointing something out).

Fair enough if he had lost his licence for some specific reason (an example would be drink driving for a car licence) then that might imply something but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

The parents of six year-old Ben Porcelli, who died, said it was evident that "unnecessary risks" were taken.

FFS that is what he did all his life!!

Not sure if I'm missing the point here, but is it relevant that McRae took risks all his life - he did that because he chose to do what he did, and presumably his co-driver agreed to as well.

I also don't know what 'unnecessary risks' the parents of Ben Porcelli are referring to.

What is clear is that taking risks on your own, and taking risks with someone else's 6-year old child are two totally different situations.

Flying in a helicopter is a BIG risk, when the engine fails there is no redundancy, at least with a plane you can glide down.

His passengers chose to fly with him so were happy to go into a situation with quite a big risk factor, it was a journey of just 8 miles IIRC to a neighboring farm so hardly a flight they had to take.

I would say he was a pretty experienced pilot as well

"965 hours (of which 490 were on type)

Last 90 days - 50 hours estimated

Last 28 days - 15 hours estimated"

The full AAIB report is here

It's worth noting it says:

"Colin first qualified during the transitional period whilst the British lifetime licence system was being replaced by the European Joint Aviation Requirements five-year licence and this caused considerable confusion.

... the AAIB recognise that the CAA Authorised Examiner who conducted Colin's Licence Proficiency Checks (LPCs) in March 2005 and March 2006 did not check the pilot's licence on either occasion, being under the impression that he had been issued with a lifetime validity licence, as was Colin."

His passengers chose to fly with him so were happy to go into a situation with quite a big risk factor, it was a journey of just 8 miles IIRC to a neighboring farm so hardly a flight they had to take.

I agree in respect of the adult passengers, but a 6-year old capable of considering risk assessments - I don't think so.

Colin's son was also there as well, do you really think he would knowingly put he own son's life at risk?

I could speculate as to what i think happened........ but thats all it would be - my opinion,

I will leave it up to the press to assume what happened in the way only they can. :thumbdwn:

As much as I liked Colin McRae, if someone on here didnt have a full license for driving a car and somehow their own kid, a mate and someone elses kid were killed in an accident. I'm not sure whether the fact he had 'good driving skills' but no license would come into it, the driver is responsible for everyone in a vehicle and making sure its insured, taxed, MOTed etc

As much as I liked Colin McRae, if someone on here didnt have a full license for driving a car and somehow their own kid, a mate and someone elses kid were killed in an accident. I'm not sure whether the fact he had 'good driving skills' but no license would come into it, the driver is responsible for everyone in a vehicle and making sure its insured, taxed, MOTed etc

Are you saying that someone becomes a "dangerous driver" just because it's 10 years and 3 months since their photocard licence was issued and they've not replaced it? That is the analogous situation here. Oh and the driver is not responsible for other adults in their vehicle; those adults are free to not wear seatbelts, or (if physically strong enough) open a door whilst being driven down the motorway at 70mph, to give 2 obvious instances.

Are you saying that someone becomes a "dangerous driver"

No, I'm saying that rules are rules and if you feel you are responsible enough to fly a chopper then you should be responsible for keeping your training and license up to date. If your gun license expires, the police come and take the gun off you.

No, I'm saying that rules are rules and if you feel you are responsible enough to fly a chopper then you should be responsible for keeping your training and license up to date. If your gun license expires, the police come and take the gun off you.

It's really very simple; his hours in period and on type were adequate; the paperwork wasn't up to date, and that partly because no-one had realised that his basic helicopter licence was one of the first "periodic licences" rather than one of the last "perpetual licences".

Oh and it is entirely legal to own an aircraft without posessing a pilot's licence. Gun licences aren't analogous unlike my example of a photocard driver's licence.

If you really don't understand this, I suggest you go and hang out at a flying club for 4 or 5 Saturdays.

It's really very simple; his hours in period and on type were adequate; the paperwork wasn't up to date, and that partly because no-one had realised that his basic helicopter licence was one of the first "periodic licences" rather than one of the last "perpetual licences".

Oh and it is entirely legal to own an aircraft without posessing a pilot's licence. Gun licences aren't analogous unlike my example of a photocard driver's licence.

If you really don't understand this, I suggest you go and hang out at a flying club for 4 or 5 Saturdays.

So its fine to fly without an up to date license?

So its fine to fly without an up to date license?

At what point did Ken say it was ???? :confused:

I didn't; what I am saying is that there is a fundamental difference between "flying with a legally expired licence and type currency certificate", and "flying dangerously and/or whilst not current on type".

I didn't.

Thats what i was getting at.

Thats what i was getting at.

Come on Johnny, lets be grown up about this, we are having a discussion.

It's obviously alot more complex than the article is making out with regards "periodic licences" and "perpetual licences".

It would appear from the crash report that not only was his licence expired (and it wasnt the first time this had happened), he was also lax with other aspects of the paperwork.

None of the above caused the accident, of course, but indicates someone who has a 'cavalier' attiude to the responsabilites of flying. It of course, like Graham Hill, is bound to lead to some massive legal actions against his family from the families of the other people in the crash......

The crash report also mentioned that someone was filming, and it hints that they where been given 'the ride of their lives', which is more the realm of highly (and constantly) trained military pilots, not civilian pilots......

I guess the old saying 'there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old & bold pilots' rings very true!