Microlight pilot dies on very first leg of charity flight to Australia

January 19, 2010 4:59 AM

Martin Bromage, 49, took off yesterday morning but contact with him was lost over the Channel. His body was found by a French patrol boat at 10pm last night, two miles from Boulogne. His website remains up and his GPS location tracker is still working...
posted by A189Nut (51 comments total)

He had young children. If he wasn't dead he should be shot for doing something so dangerous.
posted by RussHy at 5:15 AM on January 19, 2010

chance of making it all the way to Aus in that plane seemed pretty slim. and £150k? is that all?
posted by mary8nne at 5:19 AM on January 19, 2010

Maybe you can email the mods and ask them to fix your links.
posted by OmieWise at 5:20 AM on January 19, 2010

For some reason there was no way to embed the links when I made the post.
posted by A189Nut at 5:21 AM on January 19, 2010

Just type <a href="http://link">description</a> when you're writing up your post.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:34 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

Two young children? Somehow I think this may have been more about himself than charity.
posted by R. Mutt at 5:36 AM on January 19, 2010

It's well known that after you have children you are no longer allowed to leave your padded room.
posted by atrazine at 5:43 AM on January 19, 2010 [9 favorites]

Weren't ultralights known to be totally, utterly, completely dangerous decades ago? Even for experienced pilots? A sudden gust of wind will batter those things around like a rented mule, no matter how much experience you have.
posted by zardoz at 5:49 AM on January 19, 2010

So. Farewell Then.
Martin Bromage.
You tried to fly to
Australia.
But turned out to be
A failure.

E. J. Thribb (17½)
posted by TheophileEscargot at 5:51 AM on January 19, 2010 [3 favorites]

He had young children. If he wasn't dead he should be shot for doing something so dangerous.

Indeed. Of course, the same -or worse!- goes for every single soldier with kids.
posted by vivelame at 5:55 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

It's well known that after you have children you are no longer allowed to leave your padded room.

I missed the part where refraining from attempting a nearly impossible, potentially fatal, stormy sea crossing in an ultralight aircraft is roughly equivalent to perpetual enclosure in a padded room.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:58 AM on January 19, 2010 [6 favorites]

This was weird. I picked up Metro this morning and read about him and thought it sounded ambitious, but good on him. By 11am the BBC was reporting he was dead.

I feel for his family. There is a picture of him beaming away with his wife and son and it's, obviously all over. And the ever-sensitive prats at the Daily Mail feel obliged to tell us he got killed on his FIRST DAY.
posted by MuffinMan at 5:59 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

Mr Bromage had spent many years racing motorcycles, scuba diving, white-water kayaking, mountaineering and rock climbing.

He had circumnavigated the British Isles four times by microlight.

Last year he flew unsupported from Gloucester to Lagos in the Algarve.



He wasn't a total amateur. And he's crossed the Channel before.
posted by vacapinta at 6:02 AM on January 19, 2010 [2 favorites]

I missed the part where refraining from attempting a nearly impossible, potentially fatal, stormy sea crossing in an ultralight aircraft is roughly equivalent to perpetual enclosure in a padded room.

I know, but sorry - every time an obituary is posted here for someone who died doing something dangerous we get the same irritating nattering. And for some who has raced motorcycles for years giving up dangerous sports probably is roughly equivalent to perpetual enclosure.
posted by atrazine at 6:08 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

I know, but sorry - every time an obituary is posted here for someone who died doing something dangerous we get the same irritating nattering.

I think it comes up most strongly when someone gets killed doing something both dangerous and useless. Because no matter what a thrill junky he was, if you had told him "hey dude, if you take off today you will never see your kid again" there's no way he would have taken off. It's not like he was personally carrying the recipe for the anti-zombie serum or something, you know?

So while I don't think parents need to be locked in padded rooms, I also think that the mental calculus around risk has to shift a bit as you get more people dependent on you. Things that are 100% awesome when you are 20 and single are maybe a bit less awesome when you have a family.

That doesn't mean no risk -- it just means making sure "hmm, what if I never saw my family again?" becomes a significant part of the thought process, and that the risks you take are really worth it. And maybe that's what he did -- maybe this genuinely was that important to him. Like I said above, though, I'd bet he would have walked away if told the trip was one-way. Risk in the abstract is a lot easier to shrug off than the consequences may be.
posted by Forktine at 6:25 AM on January 19, 2010 [6 favorites]

So while I don't think parents need to be locked in padded rooms, I also think that the mental calculus around risk has to shift a bit as you get more people dependent on you. Things that are 100% awesome when you are 20 and single are maybe a bit less awesome when you have a family.

Ten years ago, or so, I worked as a kayak instructor. I also taught swiftwater rescue to firefighters and rescue personnel. I remember we were going over the (Eastern) classification of rapids, the 1-6 scale that is used to describe how difficult a given rapid is. Six is unrunnable, so we had ruled that out, and were talking about class 5 rapids. My co-instructor mentioned that there are rapids that many folks consider 5+. Someone asked "what's a five+ rapid?" And he said, "A rapid that you used to run, but you don't anymore because you stop at daycare on the way to work." I've always thought that neatly encapsulated the notion of relative risk, even as it plays out in communities where severe risk is considered part of the fun. (We were actually talking about a particular rapid, and we both had a friend who had been paralyzed after running it incorrectly.)
posted by OmieWise at 6:43 AM on January 19, 2010 [19 favorites]

I think it comes up most strongly when someone gets killed doing something both dangerous and useless.

Like trying to raise a couple of hundred thousand for charity?

I see absolutely no reason at all why doing something daring or media-worthy for a good cause should be prevented by the existence of children. Insure yourself so they can be provided for and take every precaution you can (which it sounds like he did), but why the fuck should it mean the end of your life in terms of your own choices?

Like I said above, though, I'd bet he would have walked away if told the trip was one-way. Risk in the abstract is a lot easier to shrug off than the consequences may be.

I imagine 20:20 hindsight would affect almost all decisions.

Walking to the shops and back isn't going to generate enough interest to make some money for a charity that is important to someone. That's just the way the world works, unfortunately. If the guy wanted to raise money, he had to do something out of the ordinary.
posted by Brockles at 6:45 AM on January 19, 2010

I'd bet he would have walked away if told the trip was one-way.

That's not a particularly useful observation. The same is true of almost anyone, parent or not.
posted by cribcage at 6:51 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'd bet he would have walked away if told the trip was one-way.

Actually, he would probably have driven away and that is pretty dangerous for both him AND others.

(Offtopic: Where did the input formatting go? Firefox and Linux and it has been missing for a while)
posted by srboisvert at 7:09 AM on January 19, 2010

You drive?! But you have children! Don't you know that over 40,000 people die in their cars every year in the USA alone?!
posted by normy at 7:16 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

Well his 'young children' are 25 and 9, so there's that.
posted by mazola at 7:37 AM on January 19, 2010

Sorry for his family, and hopefully donations will still come in and be distributed as planned. But, it's hard to not think about that tiny "airplane" trying to cover 300 miles over open water and not immediately have the term "suicidal" come to mind.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:39 AM on January 19, 2010

This exceeds my own tolerance for risk, but I guess that's why I wasn't doing it.
posted by mazola at 7:42 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

Indeed. Of course, the same -or worse!- goes for every single soldier with kids.

And everyone who drives an automobile.
posted by klanawa at 7:53 AM on January 19, 2010

Like trying to raise a couple of hundred thousand for charity?

Obviously none of us have way to know what his true motivations were. But most of the "charity" trips like his that I've seen are pretty transparently add-ons -- you want to do the trip anyway, so why not raise some money while you are at it? There's nothing wrong with raising money, but trips like that are usually not the most effective way to do so.

Look, I'm not beating up on the guy; I feel for him and his family, and I've done plenty of dumb things myself. But I really do think that the risks he was willing to take on were out of proportion both to the possible benefit that could come from the trip, and to his family situation.
posted by Forktine at 7:57 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

>It's well known that after you have children you are no longer allowed to leave your padded room.

I missed the part where refraining from attempting a nearly impossible, potentially fatal, stormy sea crossing in an ultralight aircraft is roughly equivalent to perpetual enclosure in a padded room.

I missed the part where the existance of children makes this act any more dangerous than it would be for someone who's childless.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:25 AM on January 19, 2010

It seems he was unable to land in his chosen location because of fog, was offered an alternative, but decided to turn round and try to fly back to England.
posted by Phanx at 8:30 AM on January 19, 2010

I'm OK with doing things that are both dangerous and ambitious, but a 300-mile microlight flight...in January? That sounds suicidal, and I'm not being snarky. Wouldn't surprise me if he turned out to have huge hidden debts or something.
posted by anigbrowl at 9:06 AM on January 19, 2010

I'm sort of amazed that anyone would argue against the idea that someone should try a little harder to keep themselves alive once they become a parent. If you've got kids, then you've got responsibilities to them and you can't really keep those if you're dead. Life insurance payouts don't exactly make a substitute for the loss of a parent at a young age.

I've never done things at dangerous as flying an ultra-light but when I did become a dad I started drinking a lot less, driving more carefully, eating better, etc. If I had managed to kill myself off doing something stupid (like flying a motorized kite around the world in winter), I'd expect my son to be pissed off at me and rightfully so.
posted by octothorpe at 9:08 AM on January 19, 2010 [2 favorites]

Like all aviation, flying microlights is not a spectacularly risky venture as long as good judgement and sound decision making are exercised. I think the problem in this case and others like it, is that the "record attempt" or "epic adventure" aspects known to pilots as "external factors" of the venture impair the decision making. It sounds like the weather reports for his destination were poor, so the decision to leave in the first place was suspect. Beyond that he appears to have initially decided to fly to an alternate, but then changed his mind for unknown reasons and lastly we have no idea why he actually crashed, though local pilots speculate it was spacial disorientation. This is where a pilots gets disorientated flying inside a cloud because they have no horizon reference and lose control of the aircraft. This accident chain seems to be all about poor pilot decision making. When you see this in an otherwise sane, experienced & healthy pilot then external factors are very often to blame.
posted by Long Way To Go at 9:11 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

I coaxed some tracks out of his GPS tracking site. Here's his ground track and here's the altitude profile.
posted by Nelson at 9:11 AM on January 19, 2010

Octothorpe, I don't think anyone is disputing the empiric idea that "parents may want to try a little harder to be careful for the sake of their kids". I think the only disconnect is in saying that what Bromage did WAS one of those things you should stop doing, as opposed to being his job, pretty much.

In other words:

I've never done things at dangerous as flying an ultra-light but when I did become a dad I started drinking a lot less, driving more carefully, eating better, etc.

If you've never trained for a pilots' license, much less flown an ultra-light, how is it that you can say with a certainty that flying an ultra-light IS comparable to drinking less, eating better, etc. when it comes to "optional activities you cut out now that you're a parent"? In OTHER other words: running into a burning building is dangerous too, but would you make the argument that "why didn't that firefighter give up his job for his kids, the way I gave up drinking as much"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:24 AM on January 19, 2010

Mr Bromage had spent many years racing motorcycles, scuba diving, white-water kayaking, mountaineering and rock climbing.

He had circumnavigated the British Isles four times by microlight.

Last year he flew unsupported from Gloucester to Lagos in the Algarve.



He wasn't a total amateur. And he's crossed the Channel before.

so, presumable he's been an extreme risk-taker his whole life, and the children's remaining parent felt secure enough in her own child-rearing abilities to spawn with him.
posted by toodleydoodley at 9:51 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

presumably. -ly
posted by toodleydoodley at 9:51 AM on January 19, 2010

In OTHER other words: running into a burning building is dangerous too, but would you make the argument that "why didn't that firefighter give up his job for his kids, the way I gave up drinking as much"?

You're missing two points; first that the firefighter's kids are being supported by his job; second that firefighting isn't nearly as dangerous as flying an ultralight over long distances in bad weather (which people just don't do at all, precisely for that reason). Heck, firefighting isn't in the top 10 most dangerous jobs!

Overall, what people are missing is a sense of proportion. Sure, driving a car has a chance of killing you, and so does flying an ultralight into fog; but the ratio between the two probabilities is at least ten thousand to one if not a lot more.

(Quick estimate: there are less than 10 fatalities per billion miles travelled in cars, in the US; his journey was about 10,000 miles; while estimating his chance of fatality is hindsight is very hard, considering that he died almost instantly and had many dangers to go, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that his chance of dying in this trip was at least 1%, which gives a risk ratio of 100,000:1 - and that's assuming you're comparing the flight with a 10,000 mile drive! My realistic estimate is that his ultralight trip was millions of times more dangerous than a normal drive, thousands of times as dangerous as running into a burning building....)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:56 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

Overall, what people are missing is a sense of proportion.

That statement by itself is so true in a general sense. But, especially here. To compare intentionally flying long, difficult routes in an ultralight to driving a car is disingenuous and intellectually lazy. Driving a car is part of the baseline of many people's normal routine and they are directly dependent upon it for sustenance. Flying a tiny go-cart around the world is not, obviously. Why am I even typing this? Short version: don't make shitty comparisons that you know are shitty.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:01 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

Short version: don't make shitty comparisons that you know are shitty.

You mean like saying this guy should have given up a huge part of his life "the way I gave up partying when I had kids"? I quite agree.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:03 AM on January 19, 2010

I see absolutely no reason at all why doing something daring or media-worthy for a good cause should be prevented by the existence of children. Insure yourself so they can be provided for and take every precaution you can (which it sounds like he did), but why the fuck should it mean the end of your life in terms of your own choices?

Circles of responsibility! Take care of yourself, then your family, etc. etc. And you aren't really taking care of yourself if you're putting your life in danger.

Or kill yourself early for charity and don't have kids who depend on you.
posted by anniecat at 10:55 AM on January 19, 2010

Well, I'm sure his 25 year old child is sad, but quite capable of taking care of himself.

His 9 year old has much more to lose from this, but is at an age where much of his character is already set. At this age, parenting is much less about hands-on tending and much more about teaching valuable life lessons. Like about taking risks, pursuing dreams, being charitable, contributing to family and community, etc. This tragic event makes very real both the positive and negative aspects of this venture and undoubtedly will help shape the man this youngster becomes.

If this incident wound up putting his family out on the street unable to fend for themselves then, yes, it was irresponsible of him.

Else:   .
posted by mazola at 11:52 AM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

I always thought that the main theme of parenthood was one of sacrifice. You have to give up things in order to have a child, because you owe a duty to that child. Sacrifice means you shouldn't do things you might otherwise want to do, if they have a great likelihood (or certainty) of causing incredibly massive hardship for the child.

Thrillseeking is fun and all, I'm sure. The adrenaline rush is an addictive thing, I am told. Like a drug, even. Addictions often result in parenting choices that are less than ideal for the child.

Sometimes having Maximum Fun conflicts with the responsibilities you have (presumably) chosen to take on. We don't all get to do exactly what we want 100% of the time. And obviously different people choose different tradeoffs. Nobody wants to never have fun or do things they enjoy, and a certain amount of risk is part of normal life.

I realize that there are inborn tendencies for males to want to take great risks to prove the fitness of their genes, or whatever. That doesn't make it right to take every risk, especially the ones with a high likelihood of death.

Anyway, in my opinion, part of maturity is that you make choices where you don't always get to have the things that (you think) would make you most happy, because other things matter more and you can't always have both.

If I were his child, I would be angry.
posted by marble at 1:25 PM on January 19, 2010

Where I disagree with you is that I doubt that this was strict "thrillseeking." This was an attempt to do Something Large And Attention-Getting towards a charitable end.

And honestly, I often wish my own father were a little less responsible than he was -- he took a daily-grind kind of job to provide for us, but it was one that he hated, it was well into my teens when he found something he really genuinely loved doing -- and I wish he'd done so sooner; a happy dad is invaluable.

If I were this guy's child, I'd be proud of him for taking on a big challenge.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:30 PM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

To compare intentionally flying long, difficult routes in an ultralight to driving a car is disingenuous and intellectually lazy.

That's not very polite. Nor do I believe it's accurate.

A poster above me had compared this trip to getting into a car - I pointed out that these were not at all comparable because the danger factor is so very much greater.

Driving a car is part of the baseline of many people's normal routine and they are directly dependent upon it for sustenance.

I did in fact point out that taking risks in order to earn a living for your family is a very common thing... so what's your point?

Flying a tiny go-cart around the world is not, obviously. Why am I even typing this? Short version: don't make shitty comparisons that you know are shitty.

Flagged. Clearly you don't agree with me but calling me names and swearing at me is not the way to express your disagreement.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:04 PM on January 19, 2010

lupus_yonderboy: my little comment was not directed at you nor did I call you a name.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:05 PM on January 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

My realistic estimate is that his ultralight trip was millions of times more dangerous than a normal drive, thousands of times as dangerous as running into a burning building....)

Personally, I find your 'estimate' makes enormous assumptions and I find it way, way off realistic. Micro-lights are millions of times more dangerous than cars?

What rubbish. That is a laughable concept that something is millions of times more dangerous than driving a car (other than Russian roulette, maybe). Microlight fatality rates are, if you'd bothered to investigate, comparable to that of helicopters. Your '1% chance of crashing in those 10,000 miles' was, basically, plucked out of thin air and your method of comparison is utterly flawed.
posted by Brockles at 2:23 PM on January 19, 2010

shitty is sweary word? oh my.
posted by the cuban at 2:27 PM on January 19, 2010

Maybe he did have a death wish. I've often thought that in that situation, if you can dfind a way to die that actually benefits others, so much the better. Possibly even more money will be raised for Haiti because he died.

Which has nothing to do with his responsibility as a parent, except that perhaps that an explicit suicide could leave an even more traumatic legacy.
posted by Salamandrous at 3:00 PM on January 19, 2010

marble wrote: "
If I were his child, I would be angry."

If I were his child, I'd be a lot of things. Sad, angry, accepting, etc, just depending on when you asked.

And just for what it's worth, I can say from personal experience that sometimes people who are making responsible choices end up dead, too.

This pile on is ridiculous.
posted by wierdo at 6:55 PM on January 19, 2010

I gotta put this nonsense about it not being a dangerous activity, or comparable to driving a car to bed.

Read this report. Especially chapter 11.5 Microlights. I quote

" [between 1990 and 1999] There have been 164 reportable accidents involving UK microlights, of which 22 were fatal. These accidents have resulted in 26 fatalities and 43 serious injuries, as shown below."

Looking at the hours flown (per year) + the number of fatalities you get something like this:

1990: 80738 hours flown, 3 fatalities
1991: 90 405 hours flown, 2 fatalities
1992: 100 909 hours flown, 3 fatalities
1993: 108652 hours flown, 1 fatality
1994: 125 530 hours flown, 1 fatality
1995: 123 209 hours flown, 3 fatalities
1996: 102 772 hours flown, 3 fatalities
1997: 115 543 hours flown, 3 fatalities
1998: 119 229 hours flown, 1 fatality
1999:132 356 hours flown, 2 fatalities

This gives us a median of approx 1 fatality for every 49 970 miles flown.

Then go over here, and we get 31970 fatalities on the road in the UK in those ten years, with (from here) a total of 4314.9 billion miles travelled, or more succinctly:

A median of approx 1 fatality per 135 905 536 miles driven - and that includes motorcycles etc.

So please stop this _arrant_, _bullshit_ nonsense about microlights being safe and driving being dangerous. By literal word of meaning, yes. But any _meaningful_ comparison between the two highlights that it's like saying, with $2 in my pocket that I "have money", and then saying Bill Gates is just like me because he "has money, too".

Microlights are bloody dangerous, Driving is relatively safe. Case closed.
posted by smoke at 9:22 PM on January 19, 2010

oh shit, hours + miles mixed up. Great, I have to dig through that mammoth report again. Sigh.
posted by smoke at 9:35 PM on January 19, 2010

Bugger, i can't find any statistics that are reliable for driving hours, but going off our miles, let's assume a very generous avg speed of 60 mph, that leaves us with:

1 fatality per 2 265 092 hours driving. That still makes microlights 45 times more risky than driving. And that number is way low-balled; avg speed would be closer to 40mph than 60.
posted by smoke at 9:43 PM on January 19, 2010

smoke wrote: "Microlights are bloody dangerous, Driving is relatively safe. Case closed."

I don't know about the UK, but here in the US, ultralight/microlight pilots (because they aren't actually "pilots" by the FAA's definition) don't have to keep the same logbooks that pilots of larger planes do, so there simply aren't accurate statistics about fatality rates.
posted by wierdo at 10:30 PM on January 19, 2010