McRae Helicopter crash - verdict:

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
Former world rally champion Colin McRae engaged in "unnecessary and unsafe" low-level flying before an avoidable helicopter crash which killed him, two children and another man, a sheriff has ruled.

A fatal accident inquiry (FAI) found McRae had been "imprudent" in embarking on demanding manoeuvres in difficult terrain, "contrary to the principles of good airmanship".
Sheriff Nikola Stewart, who ruled the fatal crash could have been avoided, confirmed that the sportsman did not hold a valid flying licence and should not have been flying the aircraft at the time.
McRae, 39, his five-year-old son Johnny, the boy's six-year-old friend Ben Porcelli and Graeme Duncan, 36, all died when the aircraft came down near McRae's Jerviswood House home in Lanark on September 15 2007 as he flew home from a trip to see a friend.
The Eurocopter Squirrel helicopter crashed into trees in steep ground on the south bank of the Mouse Valley water before bursting into flames. Ben's parents had no knowledge that their son was on the flight and had not been asked for their consent.
The inquiry, which sat over 16 days this year at Lanark Sheriff Court, concluded the deaths could have been avoided if McRae had not engaged in unsafe low-level flying.
"It would have been a reasonable precaution to refrain from flying helicopter G-CBHL into Mouse Valley wherein the pilot engaged in low-level flying when it was unnecessary and unsafe for him to do so, and whilst carrying passengers on board," she stated.
The sheriff found there was "no operational or logistical reason" for McRae to have descended into the valley at speed.
In her written determination, the sheriff concluded: "The deaths and the accident resulting in the deaths might have been avoided had Mr McRae not flown his helicopter into the Mouse Valley. Such a precaution would have been entirely reasonable. There was no necessity to enter the Mouse Valley. There were no operational or logistical reasons to enter the Mouse Valley.
"Mr McRae chose to fly the helicopter into the valley. For a private pilot such as Mr McRae, lacking the necessary training, experience or requirement to do so, embarking upon such demanding, low-level flying in such difficult terrain, was imprudent, unreasonable and contrary to the principles of good airmanship."

So there you have it.
 
Why is it that the same thing is repeated three times in the same statement? Do these people think we will forget in the 10 seconds it take to read it? Or do they have a minimum word requirement ..... maybe they get paid by the word?

If true, Colin made some bad choices ..... but it must be true I just read it three times....sheeze.
 
Having had a) a brother die in a private plane crash here in the US in recent years, and b) a very good friend who is a lead NTSB investigator, I have some thoughts on this one:

1. I'm surprised that an authoritative statement was issued on the matter. When there's no survivors or observers to be interviewed, and where the wreckage is heavily damaged, then it's difficult to know conclusively what happened (at least with small/private air craft) in many cases. NTSB doesn't always issue a finding, and that can be troubling for relatives of the deceased, and insurance people.

2. Despite the NTSB's findings, things may be a little more complicated. Perhaps Colin descended low to the ground there because the aircraft (or himself) was under some duress. People have had strokes while flying, for example, then made a full recovery shortly thereafter on the ground.

3. It's entirely conceivable Colin was acting like an idiot, and doing so with his own child (and somebody else's child) in the plane. If that was the case then this accident is even more tragic.

So unfortunate.
 
When I started flying helicopters (ARMY) we were told, " No one has invented any new way of killing themselves. Don't try."
Twice a year at safety conferences, we listened to the same sentence before viewing the next series of mistakes, poor judgment, or trying to become the first person to loop or roll a COBRA. The worst error I remember was when two pilots took their wives for a low level joy ride down in the Caribbean in a UH-60. The a/c won't sustain low level flight on its side. Lost both wives, one pilot, a crew-chief lost a leg, and a $12 million aircraft. The kids lost their parents. Alas, the remaining pilot had time to think about his decision in prison.

The rest of us were just lucky I guess.
 
....Caribbean in a UH-60. The a/c won't sustain low level flight on its side....

Grady,

Forgive my ignorance but wouldn't the pilots have known the A/C wouldn't sustain low level flight on its side? If so, wouldn't they realize they were on the edge?

I know I have been an idiot before and tried things I shouldn't have but I usually knew the capabilities of a machine before I attempted to do something stupid (e.g. seeing how high a pick-up truck could fly over a ditch)

Kevin
 
As a professional Skydiver for many years I have seen a few of my friends die from their own bad judgement, but a far larger number (10-15 at a time) die in plane crashes. It is our nature as thrill seakers to push the envelope. I know I have, as a piolt, a skydiver, rock and ice climber, and some time mercenary (ex Spcial Forces). It was my choice to do so and as long as I was the only one put at risk acceptable. I, as others, do not really know just what happened here. For all the family members left behind I hope it was an equipment failure not a brain failure... My hart goes out to the families. richard
 
Forgive my ignorance but wouldn't the pilots have known the A/C wouldn't sustain low level flight on its side? If so, wouldn't they realize they were on the edge?

I know I have been an idiot before and tried things I shouldn't have but I usually knew the capabilities of a machine before I attempted to do something stupid (e.g. seeing how high a pick-up truck could fly over a ditch)/QUOTE]

Among other things, I'm an airplane crash investigator for the US Air Force, so I know a little bit about these sorts of proceedings.

You'd be amazed at how stupid smart people can be sometimes. Heck, there are a bunch of us on this forum (myself included) who can look back at their lives and remember dangerous or stupid stunts that they pulled and just managed to get away with (or not).

Generally speaking, when somebody is operating a machine outside its design parameters, they don't *know* the capabilities of the machine. They are just taking an educated guess, at best. Youtube is filled with videos of people who made such guesses, and lost....
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
Mike - many a true word.
One of lifes ironies is the bar in downtown Narita (NRT) always referred to as The Flyers Bar and run by Yoshi, always has a Large TV on the wall with none stop video of Accidents and Incidents thoughout the years. To me, the irony is all the assembled pilots just stand and watch (open mouthed to begin with and as NRT after NRT trips pile up, just carrying on sipping [I nearly said drinking but I don't want you to get the wrong inference]) Quite a few of accidents on the video are fatal (NSFU) and are just a bit on the side of pilots who could have survived but were being stupid.
(NSFU: None Survivable ---- Up)
 

David Morton

Lifetime Supporter
Even more draconian than that. Nowadays it's best to be zero. In my days in civil aviation it was "Not to be under the influence so as to impair". Jokingly it was corrupted to "Not within 50 ft and No Smoking within 8 hours".
The 12 hour rule might have prevailed in the FAA as well.
UK Pilots can be breathalysed almost anywhere these days though I think proceedings would have generally been be halted before they get to that stage.
 
Back
Top