Seneca Crash at Taupo [Archive]

chicken6

3rd Feb 2005, 00:54

BITE:=

Well, if people eat icecream they'll eventually die as well, there's a 100% guarantee on that! 100% of breakdancers die. Every person who's ever listened to Celine Dion is either dead or will die, and for good reason.

Oh, hang on, did you mean that you've managed to interpret something, which I'm sure you can post a reference to, to mean that every passenger on a SPIFR flight will die on a SPIFR flight??????? Or is your post just there to get a reaction...

What a load of monkey nuts. Good of you to not specifically mention Christian Aviation though, they've got a pretty good reputation so far as I can tell.

Quite a stretch to say that CAA's "doing nothing", when their whole existence is purpose built to increase aviation safety. Perhaps you don't get Vector/CAA News? It's been going on (first as Flight Safety) for about 30 years... Or haven't you read the Aircraft Icing Handbook? Aren't all the rules and most of the thoughts behind them available FOC on the web? Don't you have to meet certain standards every six months? Do you suggest that more frequent checks should be mandatory? Maybe SPIFR should be ILLEGAL!!!! AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH run for it there's a plane in the sky with only one pilot AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH:\

outboundjetsetter

3rd Feb 2005, 01:02

Condolences to all involved
can someone please 'confirm' the pilots name

MOR

3rd Feb 2005, 04:28

The CAA have a very "hands off" safety culture, and it is that methodology that is largely responsible for the number of accidents.

Their view seems to be that if your manuals are up to date, you are assumed to be in "compliance". That being the case, they interfere no further. Most countries with developed aviation authorities know darn well that it takes a lot more than that to get fallible, imperfect humans to obey the rules.

In this particular case, you have to say that, no matter what the weather might be (within reason), if you stick to an approach/missed approach profile, you are completely safe. If you hit terrain, you aren't even close to the profile.

What this illustrates is that we can all make mistakes - and we all do, no matter how good a stick we might be.

I certainly hope that some mechanical or instrument problem turns out to be the cause, as I have a hard time believing that Steve Brown would wilfully break the rules.

And yes, his name was confirmed on the news a few minutes ago.

stillalbatross

3rd Feb 2005, 04:36

chicken6,

if you pull your head out of you arse and have a look at the statistics you will see SPIFR is a dangerous way to go, in comparison to a two crew environment. While the accident rate in NZ is substantially worse than anywhere else in the western world and remains so then surely it is the fault of the safety regulators? They determine training/standards/procedures and safety, the buck stops with them and the stats say they are hopeless. I don't give a rats arse about some glossy magazine CAA spits out, I simply want to be able to stick my kids on an aircraft and know they are as safe as anywhere else, at the moment in New Zealand, they are not.

Companies in the US have figured out long ago that you don't stick employees on SPIFR because there is no pilot monitoring, no margin for error and we all make mistakes. And they can't afford to lose employees. The autopilot on most SPIFR certified aircraft is a joke. They, the paying public, could have paid extra to stick a second qualified pilot on board, and they didn't. There was a considerably higher degree of danger involved (statistics again) and they were obviously happy to accept it.

Frank Burden

3rd Feb 2005, 04:54

Just thinking that many accidents occur in adverse weather. NZ has more adverse weather than Australia. The NZ accident rate could be expected, therefore, to be higher. Correct?

MOR

3rd Feb 2005, 05:07

Not correct at all. If the weather is crap, no matter what country you might be in, you fly IFR and use the published procedures. Do that, and you won't hit anything.

The other big killers, icing and strong winds, are probably well known in Oz as well?

SPIFR is clearly less safe than having a pair of pilots on board, for many reasons. The trouble is that often the travelling public are not aware of the risk, or don't think to ask about a second pilot. It is unlikely that any charter company would offer the second pilot themselves for a private charter.

And the CAA exists solely for our safety? No. I think not.

Capt W E Johns

3rd Feb 2005, 06:26

There's much more to this discussion than simply 'single pilot IFR is dangerous'. The accident rate for single pilot IFR operations undoubtedly outweighs crewed IFR aircraft by quite some margin, but lets look at the other contributing factors.

Compared to the heavies, those pilots who are operating single pilot IFR are (often) operating in light aircraft, with a less comprehensive suite of avionics, with lower experience levels, into minor airfields where the facilities are not necessarily comprehensive.

Crewing an aeroplane with more than one pilot does NOT in itself make an operation safer - just look at the amount of CRM training required to properly integrate flight deck crew. And look what can happen when CRM goes wrong.

Stillalbatross, yes you are right in that SPIFR statistics demonstrate a higher accident rate than two pilots ops. Yes, there are major advantages in having two pilots in an aeroplane. But I challenge you to think about the topic a little deeper than asserting 'fly SPIFR and die'.

My thoughts are with the pilot and passengers who were sadly killed in this accident, and I offer my sympathy to their friends and family.

stillalbatross

3rd Feb 2005, 08:54

Just thinking that many accidents occur in adverse weather. NZ has more adverse weather than Australia. The NZ accident rate could be expected, therefore, to be higher. Correct?
Cupcake, I was referring to Europe which has more cold, more mountains, more fog, more gales and considerably fewer accidents.

PitterPatter

3rd Feb 2005, 08:58

The CAA auditing system, at 135 level at least, is crazy.

Ever since the department disposed of their Aircraft that allowed them to have a more hands-on approach to regulation (and better communication with operators), all they do is check that certain manuals detail what they expect, and the operator is safe for another year.

If everybody that drove a car on the roads, was to write a manual for the MoT, that said that "Drivers shall not exceed the designated speed limit on any section of road" we shouldn’t need police cars patrolling for speeding drivers.

When was the last time that a CAA inspector did a 'ramp' check on an operator as they were about to start the engines?
Some operators might get a quick shake up if that happened more often.

Cypher

3rd Feb 2005, 09:00

The Seneca Steve was flying was well equiped...

And Steve was no wet behind the ears green 500 hour pilot. He was very experienced, in that sort of operation in that type of aircraft.

Christian Aviation gladly offer second pilots to clients..

Try and get your facts straight before you use this incident as a way to politically grandstand your opinions for your own self ego...

stillalbatross

3rd Feb 2005, 09:13

Stillalbatross, yes you are right in that SPIFR statistics demonstrate a higher accident rate than two pilots ops. Yes, there are major advantages in having two pilots in an aeroplane. But I challenge you to think about the topic a little deeper than asserting 'fly SPIFR and die'.
Capt, It is pretty obvious that to hand fly an approach accurately, one person does the flying and the other looks at the chart and monitors the aircraft's progress. The autopilots that are fitted to the average SPIFR aircraft (Citation aside) don't come remotely close to allowing the pilot under SPIFR to do any monitoring, most of the ones I've used were only any use straight and level which is where you don't really need them. Much the same way as the further on you get in this game the better the equipment seems to get, it is ironic that the busier you get in flying the approach and missed approach the less use the autopilot appears to be.

Unfortunately you don't have to go any deeper than the fact that there is no safety net below MSA on an approach SPIFR (unless you're on radar). If you picked up Prof Reasons diagram you'd see that just by setting out SPIFR in IMC with a crappy autopilot you're lining up about 3 of the holes already. You have any problems or distractions that cause you to stray on the approach and that's the remainder lined up, here comes the accident.

The Seneca Steve was flying was well equiped...

If you seriously think that any Seneca could be considered well equipped for pax air transport ops SPIFR in any weather anywhere in NZ then you need help. You are suggesting that it is as safe climbing in that aircraft and going from A to B as it is climbing on board an Air Nelson SAAB and making the same journey. It isn\'t, it would be nice if it was, but it isn\'t.

All your bashing and bitterness isn\'t going to bring back those people.

He was very experienced, in that sort of operation in that type of aircraft

SPIFR is about as hard as it gets and most of us may have not faired any better in the same situation. All experience has proven is errors are less likely to happen.
Get off your high horse and accept that there is a mode of operating an aircraft that is considerably safer than SPIFR and we can clean up our act or this stuff is just going to keep on happening.
You make it sound like it\'s acceptable because he was experienced and the aircraft was well maintained. What about the concept that he shouldn\'t have been there in the first place?

Capt W E Johns

3rd Feb 2005, 10:34

HI Cypher, just to clarify the intent behind my comments earlier: I in no way want to disparage the incident pilot, aircraft, or organisation. Quite the contrary - I want to refute the suggestion that the accident was somehow inevitable purely because it was a single pilot flight (see quote).

If people insist on passengering in an aircraft operated single pilot they will eventually die, the statistics say so

Clearly that's poppycock, and I've attempted to list somecausal factors involved in some single pilot IFR accidents, not all, and not necessarily this one. Sorry if I've caused offence.

Luke SkyToddler

3rd Feb 2005, 10:41

What an absolute disgrace, the poor guy isn't even in his grave yet and PPRuNe is already awash with people jumping to conclusions, grandstanding and using this tragedy to push their own little apple carts, anti-CAA, anti-SPIFR, anti-whatever. *Disparaging comment about general maturity levels of pilots, edited out here*.

I've never even met the man or worked for Christian, but ask anyone who operates piston twins in NZ and they will tell you the same story, the reputation of Christian is of an absolutely top notch, no expense spared, exemplary safety culture outfit whose pilots are some of the very very best in the business.

At least try to remember before you hit the post button that in this business a company's good reputation is absolutely priceless and its' livelihood rests on it. It takes many many years of good operating practice to build a rep as good as Christian's, and maybe only one uninformed idiot pontificating on a forum known to be frequented by journalists, to destroy the whole thing.

For all you clowns giving SPIFR a slating (for what it's worth I have operated extensively both SPIFR in NZ and now I'm a captain on multi-turbine airline ops in Europe) I reckon multi crew ops can indeed be a blessing when the other guy is competent, but I have on occasion found myself wishing for the relatively benign safety of my little SPIFR Seneca when I'm out and about in real weather and the FO is a newly checked to line, non-English-first-language, still learning the ropes individual who's still at the stage of making a complete balls up of the checklists and RT let alone the handling, and is basically so far behind the aircraft he needs a tow rope. Remember that multi crew aircraft are certified that way because they are deemed sufficiently fast & complex that they NEED two pilots to get the job done. If I had the choice of sending my wife and kids on an SPIFR flight with a completely reputable outfit like Christian Aviation, or on one of these more interesting European airlines that have a money making sideshow selling buy-a-type-rating-and-line-training packages to wet behind the ears CPLs, I know what I'd choose.

In any case however, NOW is not the time and place for a big bitch fight about the pro's and anti's of SPIFR. Please all of you guys show some sympathy before you carry on this slagging match, and just think what would the grieving families and friends of the deceased be thinking if they logged onto PPRuNe right now and read what you are about to post. Steve Brown at least deserves that much respect, until the accident investigation is concluded.

My deepest condolences to all those affected personally by this tragedy.

MOR

3rd Feb 2005, 11:56

It takes many many years of good operating practice to build a rep as good as Christian's, and maybe only one uninformed idiot pontificating on a forum known to be frequented by journalists, to destroy the whole thing.

Luke, grow up. Everybody here is praising the quality of Christian Aviation Ministries, and it's pilots. Nobody is having a go a them. Every comment about them, and Steve, is overwhelmingly positive.

Some have quite rightly (but possibly in badly worded terms) pointed out the problems associated with SPIFR. This is simple fact and is amply supported by evidence. It isn't even an issue.

At the end of the day, an aircraft, that at this stage appears to have been serviceable, has flown into the side of a hill.

I have lost an acquaintance, and a good friend has lost a son; and there is a certain amount of grief associated with that.

However, I am not so blind, or unprofessional, that I cannot see the likelihood that this is CFIT and such an occurence is more likely under SPIFR. I still hope it turns out to be something else.

Words such as those in the third line of your post are completely innapropriate here, and you should edit them forthwith.

You seem to be pushing a larger applecart than anybody else. Read your post, and think again.

Luke SkyToddler

3rd Feb 2005, 13:54

Righto MOR point taken, I'll edit that sentence since it seems to bother you, it was hardly central to the main argument.

I think YOU've completely missed MY point, that now is not an appropriate time to go engaging about statistical likelihoods of CFIT, pilot error, and unsafeness of SPIFR ops in general, before any kind of official pronouncement of what caused this particular crash was made.

I too, have experienced the loss of a very good mate on a similar SPIFR operation. Within hours we found ourselves in the middle of an enormous media beat up on our company, on the mental state and (superlatively good) skills of the pilot in question, and the dangers of flying SPIFR in general. It turns out post investigation, that the accident was caused by a technical fault completely unrelated to anything to do with issues of single crew or IFR, and there was nothing that one pilot or two or all the pilots in the world could have done to stop that plane from crashing. It didn't stop my mate's reputation being comprehensively smeared by a kangaroo court of so called TV reporters and aviation experts and all the usual hangers on, before anything official had been found. It's very easy for the offending media 'speculators' to publish an official retraction in the small print of some newspaper a year later, but the damage is always done by then in the minds of the public.

Maybe it was CFIT and maybe it wasn't. Maybe the lack of two pilots was a contributing factor and maybe it wasn't. The point is, that all pilots (and especially dead ones who are unable to defend themselves) should be deemed innocent until proven guilty. Sitting here bickering amongst ourselves about CFIT statistics and relative safety of SPIFR, is not going to help that process one little bit.

atyourcervix73

3rd Feb 2005, 17:34

Goodluck Browney..where ever you are....a top bloke...a top mate.

Rest in Peace

:sad:

mattyj

3rd Feb 2005, 18:13

Funeral 9-2-05..1100 Steves church in Mt Eden.

threedogtired

4th Feb 2005, 00:41

We recently used Christian Aviation for a long NZ charter with the Sceneca and their Chieftain. Our staff member who accompanied the passengers could not praise the company enough - well maintained aircraft and pilots (including Steve) who were professional and obliging.

Having lost a number of friends over the years through aircraft accidents it never amazes me a the "armchair professionals" that pontificate about causes.

SUFFICE TO SAY THAT OUR COMPANY DESPITE OF THE INDUENDO ON THIS FORUM HAVE NO INTENTION OF CHANGING OPERATORS FOR AIRCRAFT REQUIREMENTS IN NZ.

CONDOLENCES TO STEVES FAMILY

stillalbatross

4th Feb 2005, 01:11

I can understand the emotion, I flew with him a while back and he was a very good operator.

For all you clowns giving SPIFR a slating (for what it's worth I have operated extensively both SPIFR in NZ and now I'm a captain on multi-turbine airline ops in Europe) I reckon multi crew ops can indeed be a blessing when the other guy is competent, but I have on occasion found myself wishing for the relatively benign safety of my little SPIFR Seneca when I'm out and about in real weather and the FO is a newly checked to line, non-English-first-language, still learning the ropes individual who's still at the stage of making a complete balls up of the checklists and RT let alone the handling, and is basically so far behind the aircraft he needs a tow rope. Remember that multi crew aircraft are certified that way because they are deemed sufficiently fast & complex that they NEED two pilots to get the job done. If I had the choice of sending my wife and kids on an SPIFR flight with a completely reputable outfit like Christian Aviation, or on one of these more interesting European airlines that have a money making sideshow selling buy-a-type-rating-and-line-training packages to wet behind the ears CPLs, I know what I'd choose.

What utter garbage but I'll reply anyway, your anology that there are times that SP is better than multi crew leads me to believe you're one of those people who refuses to wear a safety belt when out driving. In case there is a one in a million chance that in doing so you'll be thrown clear of the car in any accident even though this scenario occurs in under four percent of accidents (the occupant gets thrown through an open or smashed window). If your F/O is newly checked to line and still learning the ropes and out of his depth then there is a problem with the way your company operates and the level of competency it requires of your F/O, you getting misty eyed and running back to SPIFR isn't going to fix it nor does it have any relevance to this thread.

Your statement that two crew aircraft are certified that way because they need it is also garbage. The workload flying single pilot, no autopilot on a nonprecision approach into a dark hole on a crap night far exceeds anything required in a larger two crew operation. In fact you're not two crew, you've got a proper autopilot that should be able to manage the flightpath laterally and vertically. It's considerably more difficult to monitor in SPIFR when you're at the coalface.

What have European Airlines got to do with it? I said Air Nelson Vs. a SPIFR operator in NZ of which Christian would be one of the best. Two operators with experience and aircraft that meet all their air ops requirements flying on the same route.

If I'd started a thread on here asking why we continue with SPIFR in this day and age with it's high accident rate there would be about 50 replies asking if an accident just occurred.

The public want a degree of safety and the SPIFR record isn't getting any better, CAA should set the bar up accordingly and the general public should pay to get on that aircraft accordingly. If that's 20% 40% or 100% more to get an aircraft that meets all the requirements then so be it.

threedogtired, If you want to travel SPIFR and find the level of accidents acceptable to you and would be unhappy paying more to substantially reduce that accident risk then go ahead. Christian are a very good operator of that aircraft in that environment and I wouldn\'t recommend anyone else.

now is not an appropriate time to go engaging about statistical likelihoods of CFIT, pilot error, and unsafeness of SPIFR ops in general

When would be a good time to discuss the unsafeness of SPIFR Luke? Before then next one? After the last one? When it occurs with someone famous on board and ignites media attention?

The "good time to discuss it" has come and gone.

threedogtired

4th Feb 2005, 02:50

As I said so many armchair observations.

In Australia we operate 22 aircraft ranging from Metro III to Cessna 310 all SPIFR without incident throughout Australia, PNG and the furtherest most reaches of the Pacific.

This includes some of the vilest tropical weather.

Why bring up SPIFR, it is a fact of life of General Aviation including RPT below 9 passengers in the likes of Piper Chieftains.

The responses sound very much like a Government regulator who will say the safest flying is when all the aircarft are on the ground.

Safety is always easierly bettered with, simply upgrading the means of transport.

I'm sure that a charterer with 4 passengers would love to pay three times more for a turbo prop as opposed to a C310. In the real world the answer is no, and if the cost of the turboprop was forced on the charterer the simple answer is they probably wouldn't fly.

That is the real world of economics in which we all live.

flyingkiwi

4th Feb 2005, 04:15

Guys you are all barking up the wrong tree with your armchair analysis.

Firstly my heartfelt condolences to SB's family, DB and all the members of Christian Aviation, I had many dealings with them and they were probably NZs best GA charter operator.

As for your arguments about SPIFR, I could almost guarantee that was not the problem in this case. Some of you have made the comment "stick on the right track keep to your minima’s and you will never hit terrain", I agree in principle but you have never flown that particular approach. I have flown it many times (almost daily for a 3 year period) at it can be pretty scary.

The "AP" NDB suffers serious coastal effect from the lake that drags you towards Mt Te Aroha, what is worse and prob the case in this accident is when the "turn in" off the DME ARC is not indicated till well through the inbound track. CAA had been advised a few years ago about the inaccuracies of this approach but at the cost of putting a VOR or 2nd NDB in decided to do nothing. Be it a Senica or a Bandit or a Metro all would (could) be led into this trap.

A very tragic loss.

MOR

4th Feb 2005, 04:29

threedogtired

As I said so many armchair observations.

Well my "armchair" is the left seat of a commercial jet. Others here are in similar positions. Yours seems to be behind a desk, so please allow us a little latitude.

stillalbatross

Absolutely spot on.

All I would add is, the only good thing that can come from this accident is a searching analysis of the way the CAA regulates SPIFR. Not likely of course, but still...

flyingkiwi

Some of you have made the comment "stick on the right track keep to your minima’s and you will never hit terrain", I agree in principle but you have never flown that particular approach.

I have, but it doesn't matter. The approach gives you the appropriate margins. If you are unhappy about the safety of the approach, don't fly it. If you are at any time unsure of your position, go around. If you don't want to take a second crack at it, divert.

The NDB approach is regularly checked for accuracy, if it is outside limits, it would be withdrawn. If you look at the plate, you will find the crash location displaced about three miles from the approach centreline, and the chart has a clear warning about circling to the east. If you commence a missed approach at the right place on the NDB/DME ALFA (2D), that is five miles west of the crash site. Unless of course I have got my facts totally wrong.

There is always the GPS approach of course...

flyingkiwi

4th Feb 2005, 08:13

MOR

I too am in a commercial jet but not too long ago flew turboprops into AP every day, from the left seat.

Yes there are set tolerances but having seen the major distortions on the approach... on many occasions. i stand by my comments, The point i make is that if you were in IMC you would have no idea of the error. Especially on a single NDB DME approach you have no secondary data to back up your information. How would you know theres anything wrong!!

Yes fine to say do the GPS approach....If you have one... and why should you have to have one. The NDB approach should be adequate.

Luke SkyToddler

4th Feb 2005, 09:32

the only good thing that can come from this accident is a searching analysis of the way the CAA regulates SPIFR

For pity's sake, what has SPIFR got to do with anything? You DO NOT KNOW what happened to that Seneca and until you do, it's wrong, and immoral, and defamatory to the memory of that pilot, to sit here and use this crash as a building block for your little anti-SPIFR arguments.

As for

[my] statement that two crew aircraft are certified that way because they need it is also garbage. The workload flying single pilot, no autopilot on a nonprecision approach into a dark hole on a crap night far exceeds anything required in a larger two crew operation. In fact you're not two crew, you've got a proper autopilot that should be able to manage the flightpath laterally and vertically. It's considerably more difficult to monitor in SPIFR when you're at the coalface.

If you are operating ATOs single pilot, no autopilot then you are of course breaking the law. The only aircraft legally allowed to operate IFR without them are small multi crew types. Eagle operate dozens of flights every day without autopilots, SPIFR Senecas are not allowed the same luxury. The J31s I regularly operate across the North Sea are non autopilot equipped. And I maintain that the workload for a captain in this operation is much higher than it ever was, when I single crewed an approach to minimas in a PA34 ambulance into Wairoa at 3 am. The stress levels experienced are not necessarily the fault of the FO, it's possible to line train a person here in the Scottish summer without seeing a cloud or a breath of wind, and then come the North Sea winter they're into 4 months of snow, ice, 300 ft bases and 35 kt crosswinds every day. That is the reality of the operating environment we live in, and it's all perfectly legal, but hey at least it's not SINGLE PILOT so it must be safe right :ok:

It is in fact possible for multi crew operators to fly into the sides of hills as well. Have a think about Ansett at Palmie, the Dakota into the Kaimais or the DC10 at Erebus. Look at the causes of those individual accidents, and tell me how you would have CAA legislate against those.

Your single minded focus on the alleged shortcomings of SPIFR and the need to 'regulate' it out of existence, before any cause whatsoever of this crash has been found, is disturbing and it's something I would expect from a sensation seeking journalist rather than a professional aviator, who knows that air crashes whether they're single or multi crew, are nearly always complex things with many contributing factors that all came together at the wrong moment.

My objection is not about debating the rights and wrongs of SPIFR (although I would certainly not draw my legislative advice from a bunch of anonymous strangers on an internet professional pilots forum, who are just as likely to be plane spotters, journalists, flight sim buffs or armchair PPL crash investigators). My objection is to the nasty little whispering and speculating campaign that always goes on amongst the ill informed after a fatal accident of this nature. And at this stage we are all ill informed. No one knows what happened up there, so out of respect for a good man's reputation, we should all shut the hell up until we know something.

If it turns out that the accident was caused by a control jam, or a goose through the front window, or an instrument failure, or one of the million other things that could have bought that plane down which have nothing to do with pilot error or SPIFR or anything else, then I hope you have the grace to come back on here in a few months time and retract your statements.

MOR

4th Feb 2005, 10:04

The following has absolutely nothing to do with this accident. It is a general observation on the way in which we treat approaches. We do not know what happened to the CAM aircraft yet. It could have been anything. - MOR

flyingkiwi

OK I suppose it is then safe to say that you never did this approach in IMC?

Funny how when the approach is checked by whoever the CAA employs to do that, it is OK?

But leaving that aside, the only approach which is not on the opposite side of the NDB from Mt Tauhara is the NDB/DME BRAVO, which I imagine most people would join straight in if approaching from the north. However, assuming you join over the beacon, you are then required to maintain the outbound and inbound tracks within +/- five degrees (and the DME distances). If you cannot do this, or have a reasonable assurance that you are on track, you go around. It is the assumption that pilots will not continue an approach when uncertain of track or position, that makes them safe.

Luke Skytoddler

Our posts crossed, it seems. I\'m not sure if you were addressing yourself to me, but I\'ll answer anyway.

The only thing SPIFR has to do with anything is dependent on the cause of an accident. We all accept that (as far as I can tell). You could maybe make a case for better advice to passengers, but at the moment, that\'s about it.

Nobody has defamed Steve - quite the reverse.

Your single minded focus on the alleged shortcomings of SPIFR and the need to \'regulate\' it out of existence, before any cause whatsoever of this crash has been found, is disturbing

What is even more disturbing is your refusal to accept that SPIFR is not as inherently safe as a multi-crew operation (your operator excepted - your F/Os have clearly never spent much time in a simulator if you say that they don\'t get to see crap wx).

Everybody, except you, it seems, gets this. It has nothing in particular to do with this accident, it is simply a statistical fact.

My objection is to the nasty little whispering and speculating campaign that always goes on amongst the ill informed after a fatal accident of this nature.

Please indicate where this is taking place. It certainly isn\'t happening here.

...I hope you have the grace to come back on here in a few months time and retract your statements.

As, I hope, will you.

flyingkiwi

4th Feb 2005, 10:55

MOR

Im not going to argue the point as i also believe an investigation needs to be done, and i want to respect the memory of Steven.

However an aircraft approaching from AR would in fact be coming from the west and the easiest way to join for the Bravo approach is via the DME arc, this is where i have seen the most deviations especially situations with my RMI showing 5-10 degrees to go till the inbound while actually sitting on the extended centreline,...

I still flew the approach in IMC as i had seen it many times in VMC conditions and knew the peculiarities. CAA at one point asked for feedback from Taupo based IFR operators re the approach yet when we explained what was happening they still did not do anything.

Anyway we will see what the TAIC come up with.

All my thoughts to the families involved. They are personal friends.

stillalbatross

4th Feb 2005, 12:03

If you are operating ATOs single pilot, no autopilot then you are of course breaking the law

Dude, put down the crack pipe. If you flew a light twin you will be painfully aware how pathetic the "certified" autopilot is, it's good in a relatively straight line and that's about it. Marginally better than a good trim. It doesn't automatically fly an approach or a hold or a missed approach so it is completely useless when you want to have a good look at the charts while you're in the thick of it.

It is in fact possible for multi crew operators to fly into the sides of hills as well. Have a think about Ansett at Palmie, the Dakota into the Kaimais or the DC10 at Erebus. Look at the causes of those individual accidents, and tell me how you would have CAA legislate against those.

And put down the bong as well. No one is saying for an instance that multicrew aircraft don't crash but the level of accidents for SPIFR or even SP multi is unacceptable. You had to go back 40 odd years to bring up the DC3 for pete's sake, for SPIFR or VFR you only have to look at ZK-NCA at CHC airport, or ZK-TZC, or ZK-JAN in the past 3 years. Have a look at the TAIC website for recent accidents, it is plain spooky.

Your single minded focus on the alleged shortcomings of SPIFR and the need to 'regulate' it out of existence, before any cause whatsoever of this crash has been found, is disturbing and it's something I would expect from a sensation seeking journalist rather than a professional aviator, who knows that air crashes whether they're single or multi crew, are nearly always complex things with many contributing factors that all came together at the wrong moment.

SPIFR accidents occur too often, it is that simple. Get rid of it in it's present form and you get rid of a lot of accidents, it ain't rocket science. As I said before, if Joe Public wants to charter an aircraft and knock about the traps, he get's a crew operating an aircraft with a fully functioning autopilot, GPS, EGPWS and a level of safety every bit as good as a scheduled service ATO. Or he rides the bus. He deserves a level of safety as good as any scheduled operator (as does the crew operating the charter aircraft) and he should be paying for it whether he likes to or not.

My objection is not about debating the rights and wrongs of SPIFR

The only "right" about SPIFR in it's present form is that it's cheaper until there's an accident.

haughtney1

4th Feb 2005, 14:00

Having read this thread with interest and sadness (I knew Steve Brown...from a few years back) can we all show a little more respect and just let the TAIC get on with it?

Albatross..grow up buddy, a little less reference to crackpipes and weed would go a long way to improving your credibility..as it is.....Luke has plenty of experience in light twins (just saying to add some more credibility to what he has to say..but NOT taking sides here)

MOR, I know your an experienced operator, and I respect your comments and assessments that I've viewed to date, I would take issue however with your assertion about SPIFR Ops. More fatalities occur on multi-crew a/c worldwide than single crew ops....purely on that basis, you are more likely to be hurt or killed in a medium T/P or Jet..than say a Seneca..etc. Having said all that and to put this issue into perspective....statistically, putting your pants on is more of a risk than flying on public transport.
I would concede however that NZ like certain parts of Europe, the Northern US, and Canada, have a particular problem with accident RATES pertaining to GA Ops. Personally IMHO I believe this has far more to do with risk management, training, and the ability and confidence to be aware and understand the unforgiving environment in which these SPIFR (IMC) accidents occur.
It is to simplistic to say GA is inherently more risky. I believe it is more accurate to say GA operators are unable to offer the safety margins enjoyed by the larger operators. Economics, operational constraints, performance issues as well as a host of other poorly understood imponderables all do their little bit to erode safety.
The fact that this accident seems to have polarised opinions is perhaps indicative of the differences that we all percieve in day to day Ops. I myself fly T/P's single crew, and am now about to fly Heavy jets multi-crew, in both instances I view the risk as minimal...Steve Brown who is no longer here to defend himself would probably have had an opinion as well. Perhaps its time we all took a step back and let the investigators get on with it..and in the process cool off a bit.

Just my thoughts and opinions..

cheers H

:ok:

MOR

4th Feb 2005, 14:54

More fatalities occur on multi-crew a/c worldwide than single crew ops....purely on that basis, you are more likely to be hurt or killed in a medium T/P or Jet..than say a Seneca..etc.

You may be right, but then from a fatalities persective, one 747 crashing has about the same level of fatalities as 80-odd SPIFR accidents, so it is a bit of a spurious statistic.

.. more to do with risk management, training, and the ability and confidence to be aware and understand the unforgiving environment in which these SPIFR (IMC) accidents occur.

I absolutely agree with you, however those very things are most likely to be missing in SPIFR. When I started out, I was flying in marginal weather, with little hard IFR experience, and little aviation experience in general. Although I was flying for a reputable operator, I was under no illusions regarding the pressures to get the job done - mostly financial ones. There are very, very few SPIFR operators who pay more than lip service to training. Compare this to the corporate environment, where the aircraft may be a similar size, but it is likely to very well equipped and flown by top-notch people who have been extensively trained. Compare the accident rate between corporate flights, and SPIFR flights in similar aircraft, and you will see my point. You have to do this using US stats as we don't really have a lot of corporate aircraft in NZ; however, in the US, you will find Learjets and the like being operated SPIFR, as well as corporate two-crew, so the figures are particularly valid.

As an aside, when training, particularly line training of new guys, I often found the SPIFR guys were the most able pilots, but also the most prone to taking risks. They often had to un-learn a lot of bad habits. I also have to say that I would find it very hard, as a jet training captain, to work in their world - it is a different skill set.

It is a pity we can't seperate this into two threads, because this discussion needs to be had.

Going back to the subject of pressure, I should point out here that I do not believe for a second that there were any financial pressures, or in fact any external pressures, in this accident.

always inverted

4th Feb 2005, 22:03

I agree with the last post, I would be fairly confident to say that there would not have been any pressure to get the job done.
CHN don't cut any corners.
Steve was an excellent pilot and I had the privelage of flying with him a few times.
As for the NDB/DME BRAVO app at Taupo, in the last 12 months I must have flown that app about 45-50 times,
The wind onthat day would have been fron the se- guessing as I was there the day before, so he would have been blown away from MT TAHARA, if not holding drift to the left.

Steve was not the sort of guy to take risks, and the company would not have done so to him either.

I also know a couple of things about the crash that alot don't so I hope that when it all comes out those with who jump into ill-informed assumtions of what happened come back and retract their comments !

I also think that people need to keep the coments on the post topic not on the pros and cons of SPIFR.

splatgothebugs

4th Feb 2005, 22:36

Condolences to the pilots family and the company. I personally didn't know the pilot or anybody in CHN but is indeed another that didn't need to perish.:(

MOR

You genrally have very well informed opinions but unfortunatley I think you may be speaking of something you nothing about this time.

Have you ever carried out any approach into AP? more to the point have you done the BRAVO app, I think not!

Every pilot who works in and out of AP knows what this approach is like and exercises extreme caution on it as FLYING KIWI POINTED OUT.

You mentioned that if the approach was unsafe CAA would not allow it, this is also not correct and you will only have to find the numerous reports and recommedations on AP to see that they move far to slowly. Looking even further you could point out the PM VOR/DME 25 app which is exteremly dangerous and still hasn't been ammended or removed.

I think before we all start pointing fingers that if this topic of SPIFR and CFIT is to be discussed any further perhaps a new thread should be made and leave this one to what it was originally posted for:ok:

splat

MOR

5th Feb 2005, 11:15

I have flown that approach into AP, and sure it looks interesting, but you have to be a long way off track to be in danger.

What you really need to quantify is WHY you consider these approaches dangerous, and then whether or not you can actually infringe a clearance whilst having an indication that you are on the approach profile.

If they were as dangerous as you suggest, any self-respecting airline or charter operator would refuse to carry out that approach.

What you are actually saying is that the CAA, whilst knowing that these approaches are actually dangerous (via calibration information), wilfully refuses to either insist they are fixed, or withdraw them. I don't believe that for a minute, and I challenge you to repeat that accusation to the media using your real name.

Why would the CAA open themselves up to some serious litigation?

All the CAA have to do is issue a NOTAM and those approaches are history. There is no real cost to the CAA, and no reason NOT to do it.

I have carried out thousands of approaches far more difficult than AP - have a look at Innsbruck, Calvi, Sumburgh or for that matter London City if you want to see approaches that get very close to terrain.

Just out of interest, how often do you guys get EGPWS warnings going into AP?

flyingkiwi

5th Feb 2005, 13:46

No NDB approach is "hard" Dangerous is a different matter. As an example of CAA's slow action take a look at what happened up in WR. The approach use to be a single NDB approach flown past Marsden point down the harbor, how many years did it take before CAA realised that the WR NDB was so prone to inaccuracies that they finally put in a second NDB "SF" and made it a twin NDB approach.

MOR the guys flying the Beech's wont get EGPWS's because they are also GPS equipped, we are talking good old raw data ADFs.

I have just been out for dinner with another colleague ex Eagle and discussed the approach with him and he said the same thing as I have already posted, A false turn on of 5-10 Degrees on a 12 mile arc equate to an error of up to 2 miles which would start putting you pretty close to certain hills.

Anyway im only speaking from doing that particular approach on average 4 times a week for 4 years not approaches in Innsbruck.

Sqwark2000

5th Feb 2005, 22:30

Not everyone flying the Beech is GPS rated and therefore fly the NDB/DME Bravo at AP using good old raw data NDB/RMI.

And since I have been flying into AP reguarly (9mths now) I have not had or heard of anyone recieving EGPWS warnings.

S2K

MOR

5th Feb 2005, 23:31

Well if nobody is getting EGPWS warnings, nobody is getting close to terrain...

flyingkiwi

My point is that many approaches around the world are designed with terrain in close proximity, but are perfectly safe if given due respect. AP falls into this category.

Looking at the approach plate, you would need to be about 30 degrees off track to be in danger. Yes, there might be an initial error in picking up the inbound, but the approach axis takes this into account, and as you continue the approach, the error decreases. Or are you saying you could be 30 degrees off track with an "on-track" indication, at about three miles from the threshold?

I think we'll just have to agree to differ on this...

Far Canard

6th Feb 2005, 01:33

When these aircraft crash the authorities spend big dollars investigating and cleaning up. The system is rubbish - do a paper audit and charge the operator heaps. It would be more beneficial for the authorities to provide financial assistance to light twin operators so they can fit TAWS A.

This accident is just another CFIT and they happen to every category of aircraft.

MOR

6th Feb 2005, 05:19

Good idea, but at around NZ$50K an aircraft, I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

Cloud Cutter

6th Feb 2005, 06:35

S2K

It's true that the majority are not GPS approach rated, however there is nothing to stop them superimposing a GPS pointer to suppliment the ADF pointer - many do this, it's perfectly legal and good practice IMO. Of course if there were significant differences in ADF and GPS tracking information, the approach would need to be discontinued.

MOR

I think that the types of aircraft with old ADF equipment that are likely to be more affected by any preculiarities, are unlikely to be GPWS equiped. I don't know if you've noticed, but many ADFs in 30+ year old light aircraft leave a lot to be desired in the traking stakes. This is just an observation, and certainly not a commentry on the recent tragic events - like every one else, I will wait for the report.

stillalbatross

6th Feb 2005, 08:38

More fatalities occur on multi-crew a/c worldwide than single crew ops....purely on that basis, you are more likely to be hurt or killed in a medium T/P or Jet..than say a Seneca..etc. Having said all that and to put this issue into perspective....statistically, putting your pants on is more of a risk than flying on public transport.

Agreed my crackpipe comments were excessive but the comparisons he gave were mind numbing and throwing up a paragraph like that after telling me to grow up is a bit rich. STATISTICALLY I am afraid, for the number of sectors flown, SPIFR is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more dangerous than any other ATO operation except maybe Ag work.

statistically, putting your pants on is more of a risk than flying on public transport.

Really? People are dead, we're nearly having one of these SPIFR acciednts every year. You'd be happy to stand up at Steve's funeral and make such a pathetic analogy, or call up any of the relatives of any of the victims of the SPIFR crash in CHC recently and make the same comment. There is a huge difference in the level of safety between SPIFR and the multicrew operation that any of the link or domestic services in NZ operate. Don't even try to group the two together.

The risk management that you talk about is precisely my arguement. There is too much risk from a variety of factors, the easiest of which we can change is reducing the workload by increasing the crew and the level of safety systems on the aircraft. At the moment the SPIFR aircraft being operated have none. And, in comparison to Australia we're way slow at introducing GPS.

You are asking a lot of an individual in a very unforgiving environment in SPIFR and if nothing changes, and it's been like this for 30 years, the accidents will continue. So you can bleat about the apparent attacks on Christian (of which there are none) and you can sit and wait for the TAIC report but so far CAA has been totally ineffective.

This accident is just another CFIT and they happen to every category of aircraft.

Yep, in the last 20 years there has been one multicrew scheduled C-FIT accident, the Dash-8 and there's been over 15 SPIFR crashes. Are you trying to tell me in some twisted way that makes it alright. I wonder if some in the flying community just expect the odd SPIFR aircraft to spear in, let's face it, it happens way too often when every other mode of transport has been utilising technology in getting safer over the past decades.

MOR

6th Feb 2005, 10:48

Cloud Cutter

You are obviously correct, but my point remains that even with old equipment, it is unlikely that your ADF needle is going to be saying that you are on track, with no flags, when in fact you are more than 30 degrees off-track - particularly when you are 3-4 miles from the station. Coastal refraction simply doesn't do that. If you are getting those sorts of errors, it is more likely to be the airborne equipment than the NDB. If that is the case - get it fixed! There is no reason for any ADF equipment to produce those kinds of errors, which in any case would be outside the certification limits of the equipment. Even the 1950's Cherokee I learned in, with the ancient combi ADF, didn't do that.

stillalbatross

Wow... but... you are quite right.

flyingkiwi

6th Feb 2005, 13:11

MOR

We will agree to disagree,

Just one thing, i know in our glass planes we have flags for adf failures but most non EFIS aircrafts adf's dont have them....

Nuff said.

Steve...RIP.

Far Canard

6th Feb 2005, 21:15

Stillalbatross

One Dash 8 crash in twenty years. How many were saved by GPWS in that time? The 15 SPIFR accident aircraft did not have the benefit of GPWS. If they did the result would have been different. SPIFR is not the issue!

The technology is here and it is time the CAA made it mandatory for all Air Transport IFR aircraft. Operators who can't afford TAWS because of capital resources should be shut down. The cost of wiping aircraft and people out is very high.

haughtney1

6th Feb 2005, 21:57

"You'd be happy to stand up at Steve's funeral and make such a pathetic analogy, or call up any of the relatives of any of the victims of the SPIFR crash in CHC recently and make the same comment"

Albatross.....I find this comment you have made grotesque, you have NO idea of my personality, my experience, or my relationship with Steve Brown and his family. Im afraid an idividual like you is not worth wasting my breath on. I cant believe people like you even exist.......I hope you rot, you sicken me:mad:

MOR

6th Feb 2005, 23:46

Far Canard

But isn't that the whole point? SPIFR as we know it is defined by rules that allow low levels of equipment in the very aircraft that need more - hence the single pilot is faced with a more complex and dangerous task.

If TAWS A, EGPWS, fully coupled autopilots etc were mandatory on SPIFR aircraft, the accident rate would drop, but then so too would the number of SPIFR flights as most of the operators would be out of business.

That may, of course, be a good thing.

prospector

7th Feb 2005, 02:12

MOR,
To take the SPIFR operations to the level of absurdity that the current CAA accept as safe, one only has to look at the Part 91 operations that are allowed to exist.

Part 91, when it used to be called Private Operations, the requirement was that the operator owned the aircraft, flew it himself, and carried his own goods. No flying for hire or reward.

However, under part 91 in this day and age, if an operator can prove that there is no value added to his freight then it is open slather, no requirement for an approved chief pilot, no recurrent training of any sort required, no flight time limitations, not even a Company Ops Manual. The operator is under no obligation to display any knowledge of the CAA act, or any knowledge of regulations. The aircraft has no requirement to be even fitted with an auto pilot let alone a serviceable unit. Unwitting Pax are carried either as "staff" or "contractors".
However as there is no requirement for the operator to hold anything in the way of a Civil Aviation Document, as required by the CAA Act, other than the certificate of registration of the aircraft, how can he be prosecuted for not complying with the rules and regulations when there is no requirement for him to show any knowledge of same.

This in an operation that flies some 1200hrs per annum, carries in excess of 200 tons of high value freight, and has never been audited, to the best of my knowledge in some 6 years of operations.

It has the CAA's blessing obviously, or is it a question of not making waves until forced to, such as in the Christchurch debacle.

Prospector