Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: C of I?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,502
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default C of I?

    Just received a F1180 for a Halifax training accident and I'm trying to work what 'C of I' means. The pilot is credited with 901 (I think) total hours solo and 25 on type; then underneath that is C of I, 743 total hours solo and 26 on type.

    Would appreciate some advice.

    Brian

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    667
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Hi Brian:

    Court of Inquiry - I presume in this case the court of inquiry were pointing out they they concluded he had a different number of flying hours to that originally stated? In most of the cards i've looked at the cards say something like C of I - "engine failure due to..." or "due to unauthorised low flying".

    Maybe someone else can be a bit more specific?

    Cheers, Tom

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,502
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Thank you Tom. I find the statements on this 1180 strange throughout to be honest. The pilot is credited with either 901 or 743 hours solo, yet on the reverse of the form is the statement "Pilot not yet suitable for training as captain and had been refused (unreadable) earlier but (nevertheless?) was accepted for this course."

    The two appear inconsistent - how could he have amassed over 700 hours solo without being captain?

    Brian

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default I have a similar problem

    on the report of DW110's crash it says "flight unauthorised" then on the next page it says they were "on a routine Anti Sub patrol over the Bat of Biscay" - so how can a flight be unauthorised and routine at the same time, seems to me some of these Cof I reports are a bit mixed up.

    Dyan

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,502
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    To be honest Dyan this particular one has a nasty smell. It is very short on facts and very much skewed towards blaming the pilot.

    I have another 1180 that records a loss as being near Shetland when it was off Blacksod Point in northwest Ireland.

    Brian

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    132
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Brian, this does sound very peculiar. Do you know very much about the pilot involved, ie, what sort of person he was? One wonders whether there was something else about him which made him unsuitable to be a captain, ie, something to do with his personality which might not immediately have been obvious. However, if he was really a dud whom people did not want to fly with, it is hard to understand why they would persist in training him. On the other hand if the RAF was down on him for some obscure reason, he might well be the sort of person officialdom would be happy to make a scapegoat of.

    Do you know whether he did all those flying hours with the RAF or did he come in with some flight experience?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Wiltshire
    Posts
    2,502
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    I'm afraid not Natalie, my interest in the aircraft is really because it was on a meteorological reconnaissance training flight and one of the crew was a Met Air Observer. The only information I have on the pilot is that he was a RCAF Warrent Officer.

    The 1180 records "Main cause of the accident was pilot failing to gain safe height after take off, contrary to instructions - may have been flying on (unreadable) instead of instruments and thought he was climbing."

    As it was a moonless night and the cloud base 300 ft, it is difficult to believe a pilot with over 700 hours committed such a cardinal error. If he was prone to this sort of action how did he manage to reach W/O rank and be allowed to fly as captain on this training flight?

    This 1180 creates more questions than answers. The ORB gives no ther information, simply recording its loss.

    Brian

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    121
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Same here Brian

    our report is "blame the dead pilot and Nav" one of the survivors, who was a witness at the Cof I, was very upset about the findings and to his dying day said it was a "snow job". Last week had a talk to an ex RAF Sunderland guy here in NZ and showed him the report, which blames the crash on the two Altos not being in sync and the Baro pressure not being corrected on crew changeover as I wanted to know what this meant. What he came up with and what we had already found out is that on the later Mk3 Sunderlands (which DW was) and earlier Mk4's there was a problem with the Alto's, so it may have been a case, as it is now a days when FIA issues a warning, the cost of the alteration as apposed to the "losses possible" was not feasible, or they had no answer and it really was a wing and a prayer job. So when this came up in the Cof I it was easier to say it was Pilot/Nav error rather than say we know there is a problem but we dont know how to fix it, and my contact had seen several like that. Our report too was a little short on detail.

    As you say, we like you, smelled a very large rodent:-)

    Dyan

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    132
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Brian, perhaps if you got the service record of the Canadian pilot it would shed more light on this mystery. At the very least, you might find out why he was knocked back for command.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •