2 dead in Vic NW of Melb at Wallup [Archive]

Old Akro

16th Aug 2011, 03:36

I'm fed up with us accepting that the aging aircraft argument has any validity. It only gets a run at all because there is a comparison made with private vehicles with has no basis in logic.

No-one questions the age of commercial watercraft, or private yachts. No-one questions the age of cranes or construction machinery. There isn't even any real criticism of airline aircraft age. Consider the age of the DC-9's 727's 747 classics, twin otters, Fokker Friendships and other aircraft still working commercially around the world.

While many private aircraft date to the seventies, the vast majority (with the exception of school & charter aircraft) have done a fraction of their design flight hours.

My 1972 Alfa has significantly less safety than a modern car because of the advances in brakes, suspension, headlights., demisters, tyres, windscreen wipers, airbags, steering wheels, ABS, crumple zones, laminated windscreens and the list goes on. I would contend that my 1978 Seneca has exactly the same level of safety as one produced by Piper last month - especially since it done about 3 years worth of flying for a charter operator.

Its time we started calling out the ageing aircraft argument for the lie that it is.

There is no indication that this really sad accident has anything to do with it being a single engine aircraft vs a twin (John Faine this morning) or that it was a 1965 model Cherokee 180.

Jabawocky

16th Aug 2011, 04:10

Shooting from the hip here but its nothing to do with aircraft age I reckon.

Sounds like VFR into IMC to me. :sad: Could be very wrong.

And night VFR under those conditions..........well what is the LSALT? not scud running height hey?

AF do screen your requirements, but at the end of the day its the PIC who controls everything.

Having said that.........I get the odd call when a VFR only guy pulls the plug, and I must commend them for doing so.

I have also pulled the pin on IFR flights.....and still gone flying myself elsewhere, but that was by myself for my own purposes. One has to set ones own limits and standards and I set mine based on the friends I keep, long living Airline, RFDS and well Forkie too. High standards indeed but I sleep at night. Follow the rules and the chances of having an accident are very very slim, even s/e IFR.... (Watch Wally bite here :E)

Enough said.

waren9

16th Aug 2011, 04:12

I understand witnesses heard it for a bit before they heard the bang which has been reported as being at about 1830. Impact damage looks to me like the pilot was not in control at the time. Disorientated or inadvertant IMC?

ReverseFlight

16th Aug 2011, 04:21

Pilot, teen killed in mercy-flight crash (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/pilot-teen-killed-in-mercyflight-crash-20110816-1iv5n.html)
He had a night rating for night flight.OMG. When I did my NVFR rating, my instructor told me it was a "Licence to Kill". I can't agree more with Jabawocky and Old Akro because a mere night rating has no place for night flights. A young pilot in a new twin aircraft could easily have ended up in similar tragic circumstances. The night plays all sorts of tricks with the eyes. Let this be a lesson for all of us - nothing short of IFR with full stage reporting would be close to an absolute minimum level of safety.

RIP, and wishing a speedy recovery for the traumatised mother.

HarleyD

16th Aug 2011, 05:02

Old Akro:

Its time we started calling out the ageing aircraft argument for the lie that it is. Mate, you are so wrong about this and your post is more full of holes than a swiss cheese, however, did it have anything to do with this tragic event? I don't know, maybe ATSB will find out.

Many of the postulates in your post are actually supportive of aging fleet replacement, rather than refuting them but this is not the time and place to discuss these matters in depth.

Be aware that the 'crashworthiness' of more recently certified aircraft that are designed to comply with dramatically higher safety design standards may not have prevented this event, but may have mitigated the injuries that were sustained in the impact. I said may as i do not know the circumstances, but one of the factors built into new (designed) aircraft is the inherent ability to reduce the incidence of injuries during and after impact. Older designs absolutely do not meet this criteria, no matter how well maintained these aircraft are, as these standards and requirements did not exist when they were designed in the 1960's

A tragic day for the dedicated pilot, his family and in particular the people entrusted to his care and their families.

HD

Old Akro

16th Aug 2011, 05:22

I was in Sydney yesterday so I have no idea what Melbourne was like, but from the BOM website:
Horsham airport & Nhill Airport reported nil rain between 4pm & 8pm. Longerenong 0.6mm, Stawell 0.8mm over the same period. Warracknabeal does not have hour by hour records but it had 7mm between 3pm yesterday and 9am this morning. All stations in the area had less than 12kts Northerly wind, many in the territory of 5 kts. Don't understand the radio reports of heavy rain unless it was very localised showers.

If the ABC reported location is correct, the aircraft was not on an IFR track. The accident site is approx 20nm North of Horsham where the sector LSALT is 3900ft, but it is very close to the Warrnacknabeal - Nhill track which has a LSALT of 2,200 ft (approx 1,700 ft AGL).

The accident site would be consistent with flying visually through the Kilmore Gap to Bendigo or Mangalore then direct to Nhill. With a setting sun, a cloud base and rising terrain to Ballarat, going North then west behind the higher terrain may have seemed a good cautious option, especially if the Pilot had flown from Yarrawonga during day because it would have been flying back into a "known" area.

havick

16th Aug 2011, 05:28

Sad accident indeed.

Whilst the premise behind Angel Flight is noble, I have always maintained that EMS / medical transfer flights should be made only by contracted operators.

The pax have no idea what they are getting themselves into when they board and Angel Flight as opposed to a contracted operator.

Frank Arouet

16th Aug 2011, 05:42

Impact damage looks to me like the pilot was not in control at the time

The aircraft seemed reasonably intact. So it looks like a CFIT to me.

4/8 cloud seems the question as to whether it was a NVFR flight and LSALT seems to be the question whether it was an IFR flight or either.

One should consider all factors and ignore media speculation in cases such as this. The ABC this morning stated Angel Flight "chartered" the aircraft from the pilot???? Oh, (and weather could be a factor). Nobody mentioned "ageing aircraft" or the fact that it had no ballistic parachute or an on board entertainment system. It probably just disappeared from radar screens as is normal, or the pilot had no flight plan, or it wasn't a mercy flight because he was coming away from medical help.

God preserve the souls of the dead and insulate them and their loved ones from the repercussions that are bound to follow.

You may all like to reflect and offer a silent prayer for all the times you have got away with similar.

TriMedGroup

16th Aug 2011, 05:56

For what it's worth, I departed Warracknabeal for Mildura at around 1610 yesterday. Began VFR but after take-off it soon became apparent that I wouldnt be able to maintain VMC at planned 4500 so chaged to IFR and entered IMC at around 3500, it became clear around 30NM north of YWKB and when I looked back to see how far it extended it was basically a wall of cloud / poor vis from the ground up and as far to the west as I could see, there was also a few returns on the storm scope. Wind from the ground up was a consistent 20Kt+ northerly and yes there were showers moving through.

I suppose this is the weather that would have still been prevailing around the time of the incident.

Have to agree with havick too.

Sunfish

16th Aug 2011, 06:21

Havick:

Whilst the premise behind Angel Flight is noble, I have always maintained that EMS / medical transfer flights should be made only by contracted operators.

The pax have no idea what they are getting themselves into when they board and Angel Flight as opposed to a contracted operator.

I think you might like to delete your post or risk being labeled a pompous **** with a very very short memory :-

Pilot, nurse die in Sydney plane crash (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/pilot-nurse-die-in-sydney-plane-crash-20100615-yasw.html)

framer

16th Aug 2011, 06:28

In my opinion, a NVFR rating should not exist. It is rarely used for what it was designed for.
I used it commercially many years ago and looking back.....there but for the grace of God go I.
I had an expired MECIR when I exercised it, (a couple of years earlier had done the full training) and I imagine that that is the only reason I'm still alive. If I had had a bare bones NVFR and had done it I can think of a couple of occasions where I would have sucumbed to the visual and somotogravic illusions that exist. Instead I managed to claw it back and only scared myself half to death.
I think it needs reconsidering.

mostlytossas

16th Aug 2011, 06:34

Have to agree with Sunfish...not to mention the air ambulance that went in approaching Mt Gambier a few years back.
Fact is IFR,VFR, commercial or private, they will all crash in bad weather with lack of care or the rules not being followed.
There is nothing wrong with NVFR providing it is just that..night V F R.
And I would guess there is not one among us that has not got caught out or pushed the boundries at some time or other. This latest accident unfortunatley comes as a timely reminder.

havick

16th Aug 2011, 06:37

Sunfish... Label me however you like, but I will not retract my opinion.

Yes, any A/C can crash. But the punters that jump on board an Angel Flight really take pot luck with who's flying them and in what equipment. One day they could get a highly experienced pilot in a good A/C, then next a brand new PPL in a busted ass 172.

What audits do pilots/aircraft go through, what minimum experience is required prior to a certain flight being undertaken etc etc..

There heart is in the right place, but does joe public really know who is flying him/her around?

** note that I am not speculating on this particular crash and its' cause.

Sunfish

16th Aug 2011, 06:47

Havick:

Yes, any A/C can crash. But the punters that jump on board an Angel Flight really take pot luck with who's flying them and in what equipment. One day they could get a highly experienced pilot in a good A/C, then next a brand new PPL in a busted ass 172.

You might like to remove that post as well since it labels you as unthinking and ignorant as well as forgetful.

havick

16th Aug 2011, 06:49

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine.

Label me however you want, I really couldn't care less. Don't think for a second that I hide behind anonimity here, because I voice my openly about this subject.

Chu Mai Huang

16th Aug 2011, 06:55

4pm liftoff from EN, VFR via Kilmore to Nhill.
(10 points go to Old Akro.)

Frank Arouet

16th Aug 2011, 06:55

In my opinion, a NVFR rating should not exist.

Like everything aviation, history is usually the motivation for sensible regulation. Statements as above do little to enhance the good this rating allows VFR pilots.

I say this without prejudicing my opinion that many regulations are made to suit an eleventh hour protocol to save CASA's arse.

The NVFR is not such a case.

Things could have changed since I last flew at night, but the forcast was the deciding factor on whether a NVFR flight could be legally undertaken.

If this was taken in hand when preparing any NVFR flight, in near end of daylight, (not necessarily this one), the flight should be considered to be able to progress with safety.

megle2

16th Aug 2011, 06:57

From Angelflight web site

"Our volunteer pilots and aircraft owners' flight credentials exceed the requirements of CASA and the aircraft meet specified CASA and insurance minimums"

There is also a mention of a minimum of 250 hours

So in other words the standard is the legal minimum or above

VH-XXX

16th Aug 2011, 06:59

The pax have no idea what they are getting themselves into when they board and Angel Flight as opposed to a contracted operator.

Fully agreed, BUT, with 11,000 flights without accident or incident, I wonder how the stats back up that concept.

havick

16th Aug 2011, 06:59

Who oversees the standards and conduct of a pilot as would occur under the umbrella of an AOC with a chief pilot etc..

Harry Cooper

16th Aug 2011, 07:01

Well Sunfish label me a pompous arse, but I have to agree with Havick.

When people board these flights they have no idea what rules and regulations surround these operations. I agree that this is indeed a very noble idea but what are the checks and balances involved. What is their interview process and background checks? What is their Check and Training system? How do they know if someone is current? I've seen some pretty ordinary stuff from some of these operations labelled as Angel Flight in the past and have only thought it would be a matter of time before an accident happened.

I'm absolutely certain that all of you, if faced with putting a loved one in a RFDS B200 or an Angelflight Cessna 172 for a flight to wherever, you would all go for the B200 as you are all well aware of the differences between the two operations.

framer

16th Aug 2011, 07:06

[quote
In my opinion, a NVFR rating should not exist.
Like everything aviation, history is usually the motivation for sensible regulation. Statements as above do little to enhance the good this rating allows VFR pilots.

quote]
..... but do weigh this good against the loss of life that follows as a consequence.

mostlytossas

16th Aug 2011, 07:14

I don't do angel flights myself but have two mates that do.
If it was to be only a commercial operation it simply would not exist. Few if any commercial operators would do it for free as they have a business to run with all the costs of it to cover,and fair enough.Most people who use it could not afford to pay for it so would go by other slower means. So be careful what you say. If angel flight ceased to be who would be the losers? The very people it was set up to help. Just like the many commuter airlines that closed down following the Monarch crash at Young and another enroute to Lord Howe Isand because "we can't have these old piston aircraft like Chieftans in RPT" many rural communities now have no airservice. Not to mention less jobs for new CPL's.

Harry Cooper

16th Aug 2011, 07:18

Oh and to whoever posted the irrelevant comment about the RFDS accident at Mount Gambier. The RFDS operates around 70,000 flights a year nationally. So 1 fatality in around 700,000 flights or on a better scale 1 fatality in 230,000,000 km flown is nowhere in the range of 1 fatality in 11,000 flights. Thats 63 fatalities for every 1 of the RFDS.

mostlytossas

16th Aug 2011, 07:35

Harry, That was me son. I am quite aware of the RFDS safety record but it merely points out an IFR operation does not guantee safety in itself.
As to your silly comment about getting on an air ambulance well ofcourse that would be safer/better etc. But the point is this is not available to Angel flight users. There condition does not qualify them to go by air ambulance. They are usually people going to clinic for long term treatment like chemo etc,or often for family members of patients visiting from remote areas. To the best of my knowledge the RFDS does not run an RPT service for all and sundry.

Avgas and Fanta

16th Aug 2011, 07:57

For those jumping the gun and calling for the NVFR to be scraped (or state it shouldn't exist)

This accident has nothing to do with NVFR. It would be the same as saying IFR shouldn't exist because somebody in a metro flew into a hill..

Not all flying conditions suit all flights. Forecasts whilst not bad, can be wrong. This accident may not even be related to NVFR.

If you are so convinced NVFR is so bad, climb out of your turbine multi, climb into a piston single and go for a night flight in good conditions. It can be very enjoyable.

Weather permitting I would prefer to be NVFR than IFR (at night) There is generally more light outside the cloud.

mcgrath50

16th Aug 2011, 08:14

Loads of people have crashed flying VFR into IMC, let's get rid of VFR too!

havick

16th Aug 2011, 08:15

Without an AOC, their is no accountability for standards.

Sunfish, you sound like a very smart businessman but you clearly have not flown within an organisation that requires accountability to CASA to maintain their CAR217 status.

Angel Flight uses pilots that hold a current licence, medical and ratings for the aircraft they will fly and which flight rules they propose to operate under (IFR/VFR). Anyone who has been around the industry would know of or personally seen some of the standards of pilots who have "shopped around a rating" for lack of a better term that have gained the tick in the box, but are marginal at best.

What accountability does Angel Flight have to ensure the highest standards of pilots and aircraft that an organisation that has an AOC and their own CAR217 C/T system? Keep in mind that AOC holders without CAR217 approvals still have a chief pilot to ensure standards are kept and adequate supervision is in place for inexperienced / junior pilots.

**Edit - If an AOC holders' standards drop, then CASA will move in and suspend their AOC (read Tiger - rightly or wrongly I'm not passing judgement on this case).

nomorecatering

16th Aug 2011, 08:17

A 4pm departure from EN via Kilmore then to Nhill, VFR is really, really pushing it. Especially under the overcast that was present, it would have been very very dark, with little or no ground lighting. The one upside is its very flat.

Ive done a lot of NVFR round the area in the last 12 months. Given yesterdays weather, it would have been very marginal at best, in the daylight, let alone pushing last light.

Bankstown Boy

16th Aug 2011, 08:24

Firstly, my sympathies and condolences to all families and friends involved, and may the one survivor recover with the least long term trauma possible.

I flew out of YMEN late yesterday afternoon/evening and it wasn't a night that I would have elected to fly if my options were only NVFR. You never can tell though, unless you are in the same place, at the same time, as the other aircraft, so I would never say that it wasn't right for the pilot.

I must however take issue with the suggestions that these transfers only take place on a contracted operator. What a load of bollocks. should we ban PPLs from carrying pax? should we ban drivers from carrying passengers in non-licenced cars?

Angel Flight performs an invaluable service that would simply not exist if it were not for the untiring effort of the team and the dedicated network of volunteers. These patients need charity to be able to survive. I have been privileged to have a flown a few people, here, there and yonder on Angel Flights and have always been humbled by their acceptance of the vissitudes that life has dealt them and thanked any god that cared to listen that it wasn't me.

I know of one circumstance where the Vic Ambo Service (whom I admire greatly - lest there be any doubt) quoted $17,000 for a one way patient transfer, as it was not deemed to meet their cut-offs. I don't know that many people who could ever afford that once let alone as an ongoing regime of treatment.

If we relied on a registered operator to perform these services. I am sure that havick would be the first to offer to dramatically increase his/her personal tax rate to cover the needed infrastructure - or should we just leave them to die and say 'bugger it I'm alright jack'?

havick

16th Aug 2011, 08:36

Bankstown Boy, you're totally missing the point I'm trying to make.

I'm not saying that a PPL cannot safely carry PAX! Who oversees this PPL pilot to ensure that they are really upto the task though?

Can someone please answer me this, are PAX required to sign some type of indemnity (similar to that of warbird/adventure flights)? Are the PAX actually aware that Angel Flight does not hold an AOC and therefore accountable to the standards of their pilots?

If the PAX are fully aware, then that's fine (not just a fineprint somewhere).

The main point I am trying to make is that without an AOC there is no accountability for any standards.

Bankstown Boy

16th Aug 2011, 08:43

Why the need for an indemnity? or indeed the need for an AOC? I am sorry but you are the one missing the point havick.

Sometimes we get so caught up in the minutia of our own circumstances that we forget that others might not fit the same mould.

Just because it involves an aeroplane and involves a person doesn't mean that we need to invoke the requirements of a legislated business. This is charitable work. It should be able to be performed by PPL's operating under their own competencies.

havick

16th Aug 2011, 08:50

Bankstown boy. Do the people boarding the flight know that the pilots' proficiency has not been checked by Angel Flight? That is THE point.

St John's ambulance volunteers are required to satisfy an assessor that they are competent prior to helping the public, same goes for Surf Life savers etc

I'm not forcing you or anyone to agree with me, it's just my own point of view which I am entitled to. You are entitled to voice your own point of view.

Sunfish

16th Aug 2011, 09:16

Harry Cooper:

When people board these flights they have no idea what rules and regulations surround these operations. I agree that this is indeed a very noble idea but what are the checks and balances involved. What is their interview process and background checks? What is their Check and Training system? How do they know if someone is current? I've seen some pretty ordinary stuff from some of these operations labelled as Angel Flight in the past and have only thought it would be a matter of time before an accident happened.

If that is the case then all PPL's are a danger to themselves and others. Come to think of it, the Commercial pilot licence standards aren't much higher either.

To put it another way, you and Havick have libeled every private pilot, plus CASA who set and administer the standards, as well as implying that anyone who flies as a passenger with a private pilot are endangering their lives.

I am not a member of Angel Flight, but they deserve our support, starting with a retraction from you.

I say again, delete your posts and I'll delete mine as well.

Frank Arouet

16th Aug 2011, 09:23

This thread has descended into high elitist farce.

The body's are still warm for Christ's sake.

Sunfish

16th Aug 2011, 09:28

Agree 100% with Frank Arouet.

havick

16th Aug 2011, 09:34

I'm not slandering Angel Flight, nor am I saying that they are a poor organisation. I won't however backpedal on my own point of view. I did not ask you to delete your posts, you're more than entitled to put your view forward.

Don't put words in my mouth, furthermore your accusation of libel is noted however unjustified. I never said that PPL's were not upto the task, it is in fact YOU implying that's what I have said which is not the case. I am asking what supervision is there of any tasking taking place?

Have you ever been tasked in adverse conditions? There's quite a difference between flying a PVT flight of your own accord A - B, and one that is tasked by some organisation. Whether you're a CPL, PPL, ATPL it does not matter, there is still the perceived commercial pressure at play, and my observation relates more to who is there to supervise these tasks?

I know I have at times come close to launching on some helo ops that I probably shouldn't have, fortunately senior pilots / chief pilots have helped me make some wise decisions to delay. Please note that I am not suggesting at all that has happened in this particular accident, it is tragic and I am genuinely sad for all involved.

My point of view isn't targeted purely at Angel Flight, my opinion extends to any organisation that is flying pax on any tasking that could impose some perceived commercial pressure on the pilot. TriMedGroup is a good example of an organisation that I applaud with the infrastructure they are putting in place.

I think I've said enough. I hope the survivor recovers.

Mimpe

16th Aug 2011, 10:05

Angel Flight mentor their new pilots in dual flight to establish their suitability, according the the website.

In addtion , you will find their hours minima have a substantial command component.Its not quite as simple figure as cited.

As for night VFR, for me, its depends on how you were taught. I was trained to be extremely cautious about the whole thing...I make no/zero/zilch marginal calls when I plan for NVFR. Its a personal thing, but im fully conscious of yhe risks. I really enjoy the rating,and as its pretty good weather, the night flying is enjoyable. I think the main comment to make apart from the need for rock solid scan techniques, is that a pretty large margin of safety has to be applied to Meteorological forecasts for cloud base relative to LSALT s. The forecasts are quite wrong with alarming regularity. Another big scare is any risk of fog...beware.

Jabawocky

16th Aug 2011, 10:16

I'm not saying that a PPL cannot safely carry PAX! Who oversees this PPL pilot to ensure that they are really upto the task though?

Can someone please answer me this, are PAX required to sign some type of indemnity (similar to that of warbird/adventure flights)? Are the PAX actually aware that Angel Flight does not hold an AOC and therefore accountable to the standards of their pilots?

If the PAX are fully aware, then that's fine (not just a fineprint somewhere).havick,

there needs to be a large amount of facts injected into this thread, I will try with some.

Who oversees the pilots........ CASA, the same folk who oversee Tiger, QF and the rest of us. Who overseas my hanger mate (72) who does the odd Angel Flight? Well for near 50 years it was QF, and CASA, and as you point out one day its him, next its me, and some days its a old blokes who may or may not be the most skilled in judgement or whatever. This may well be one of them.

Are the pax informed, ABSOLUTELY......fully, and if you did some homework you would learn a whole heap more.

If the folk who receive the charitable works of others had to go by RFDS.....they would not. Kids who need follow up care or dialysis do not qualify, nor could RFDS cope with it all.

I agree your heart is in the right place, but its far from reality. One could argue that during the many long drives all these folk would have made over the years how many would have been killed in a car crash, given many are old, sick and tired mums etc etc. Despite GA stats I think the folk are at less risk. Hard to prove but a gut feeling.

Again shooting from the hip, this guy should have pulled the pin, stayed in a motel. AF WILL pick up the tab for all concerned. They do not push folk to fly and will discourage it. At the end of the day its up to the PIC.

Hope that helps a bit.

Plow King

16th Aug 2011, 10:20

Sorry, I'm trying to keep up, but where exactly does this fit in?

TriMedGroup is a good example of an organisation that I applaud with the infrastructure they are putting in place.

Frank Arouet

16th Aug 2011, 10:23

I had the pleasure and honour of meeting and talking at length with Nancy Bird-Walton. Indeed she saw the hoplessness of looking after a mob of young studs out for a good time in Perth. A person of immense probity she has, with her kindness, enabled her inbuilt and beautiful humanity to evolve into the concept of Angel Flight sponsored by Bill Bristow. (whether Bill knows it or not).

The way some talk here, her exploits to save people in "DAY" VFR aircraft would be damned.

But then again, we had mercy flights then when people were merciful and DCA were understanding and benevolent.

People are basically good. It's up to CASA to make them bad.

Unless this matter was a direct threat to your well-being..... well, you know....

havick

16th Aug 2011, 10:25

Jabawocky.. Thanks for clearing a few things up for me.

I think sunfish and bankstown boy are getting the interpreting me the wrong way. I'm not saying PPL's or any other licence holder for that matter are incompetent. I am suggesting that conducting flights for an organisation that 'task' you, add a perceived commercial pressure that would not otherwise be there. How that is managed is the point I was trying to make in a roundabout way.

nomorecatering

16th Aug 2011, 10:40

Havick raises an interesting point. The word being TASKED. This word brings subtle, but not inconsiderable pressures of their own.

Ive regularly had to ferry aircraft at short notice for maintenance, often at the end of the day. "it has to be there" being the implication. Either the a/c is not IFr or I'm not current, an hr of daylight left when the boss pops in and says get the aircraft down to maintenance pronto. Murphies law dictates the wx will be marginal too. Not NVFR able The pressure is on, you feel it intensely.

A few times, I've had to stand my ground and say no. Much to the boss displeasure. If there is a flight where you will make a cockup, this is it. A few times after take off, I have said to myself WTF am I doing.

I can image the pilot, would have felt the same pressure. 4pm at EN, low wx, EoD 6ish and ETA very close to EoD. Low cloud, rising terrain, NVFR. The pressure of getting a not well pax home. In this scenario, there is zero margin for error. Even the most experianced pilots can fall victim of this subtle build up of pressures.

Unfortunately, on this instance all the holes in the cheese lined up.

Avgas172

16th Aug 2011, 10:51

nuff said I think .... :ugh:

Harry Cooper

16th Aug 2011, 10:55

I am not a member of Angel Flight, but they deserve our support, starting with a retraction from you.

I say again, delete your posts and I'll delete mine as well.

Your dreamin pal.

When I used to fly "charters" for Ansett when their primary aircraft broke down we were required by law to disclose that it was a not an Ansett flight as such, that it was a charter flight blah blah blah. It may as well have been in Russian because bottom line is that no one probably had a clue what we were on about anyway and probably didn't care.

There is no difference here. People expect a certain level of safety when they step aboard an aircraft.

I understand fully what Angel Flight is, what it does and the benefit it provides. My concern is that a young girl is dead, her mother critical. I dont often vent on PPrune but I am angry. You cannot fly a single engine passenger charter at night under the regulations let alone night and IFR. Why couldnt these people be afforded, or expect to be afforded that same level of safety even if it is a Private Operation? Do they understand fully the difference between Private, Airwork or Charter. Are they given a copy of CAR 206 to peruse along with their safety briefing card? People all over this thread are saying that the weather was bad, the departure time never would of allowed them to arrive in daylight. Where was that final layer of protection that would have terminated this flight before it departed?

If you actually read my post then you might see I made no such comments as you are referring to. I wanted to know what the checks and balances are. A point you seem to have missed. Again the point of my post now.

As for my last comment, I won't withdraw that.

Angel Flight as I said is a noble idea and a worthwhile and important charity but in view of last nights events it needs to look at itself and its operations to see where improvements can be made. Its no different to what any operation would do in the same instance.

ForkTailedDrKiller

16th Aug 2011, 11:11

I don't do Angel Flight!

Unfortunately the concept, while full of honorable intentions, is misguided in its execution.

Dr :8

jas24zzk

16th Aug 2011, 11:45

Havick raises an interesting point. The word being TASKED. This word brings subtle, but not inconsiderable pressures of their own.

I have no personal experience flying for AF of my own. However a friend of mine whom is a grade 1 flight instructor does fly for them. I recall once, when he was airborne, he called me in the clubhouse to call AF and cancel his afternoon Tasking (before it slipped his mind) citing Wx concerns, and that the next day looked much more suitable. When I rang them, the person i spoke to was extremely helpful, and made mention of his own Wx concerns and was attempting of find an IFR replacement already. He also made mention that he also thought the next day looked much more suitable for VFR, and he'd call us back within the next hour with the result. That call back was that the mission was to be completed the next day, the angelcab and the doctor concerned had been rescheduled... I was totally amazed at several points....

1. The flexibility/support given to the tasked pilot when he called a no-go
2. The understanding of the AF tasking office as to the nature of the cancel.
3. The flexibility/understanding of the doctor involved in rescheduling the appointment at such short notice....try that as a melbourne resident, it'd be months before you got another appointment.

The whole AF network is a credit to those that created and developed it.

Ive regularly had to ferry aircraft at short notice for maintenance, often at the end of the day. "it has to be there" being the implication. Either the a/c is not IFr or I'm not current, an hr of daylight left when the boss pops in and says get the aircraft down to maintenance pronto. Murphies law dictates the wx will be marginal too. Not NVFR able The pressure is on, you feel it intensely.

A few times, I've had to stand my ground and say no. Much to the boss displeasure. If there is a flight where you will make a cockup, this is it. A few times after take off, I have said to myself WTF am I doing.

Pressure is such an insidious thing. 2 things can work for you here, 1.Self realisation/experience, or 2. someone tapping you on the shoulder. Had the latter happen to me once, and it much helps my position with scenario 1.

I can image the pilot, would have felt the same pressure. 4pm at EN, low wx, EoD 6ish and ETA very close to EoD. Low cloud, rising terrain, NVFR. The pressure of getting a not well pax home. In this scenario, there is zero margin for error. Even the most experianced pilots can fall victim of this subtle build up of pressures.

Not sure I agree with all of this. A pilot of this age, actually should be hard to back into a corner with pressure to complete....lets face it, he didn't get to 69yo without some smarts, and that age one would theoretically feel he was well equipped mentally to think things through and make a sound decision.
It is evident, he did make that decision. I am not going to say that decision was right/wrong, inside/outside etc etc his capabilities/training. However that decision is clear that he felt confidant of achieving his objectives for the flight............if he didn't there'd be a crap load on the news that he had spoken with ML CN seeking diversions/help etc.

Cheers
Jas

Whitey63

16th Aug 2011, 11:50

It should be made clear that Angel Flight can not be compared to EMS / medical transfer type operations. People using Angel Flight's services are well enough to sit on a bus or a train for 12 hours (or however long it takes to travel from the black stump to see a specialist in the City) but can't afford the bus fare. They don't qualify for EMS / RFDS or any other free service. They're on their own. They have three things going against them - they are crook, broke and live a long way from specialist medical care. If I was an Angel Flight recipient I would think one accident in more than 11000 flights were pretty good odds, especially when a trip might be cut done from 10 hours on a bus to 1.5 hours in a light aircraft and the fact that I may be faced with tens and in some cases hundreds of these trips in my battle against chronic disease. Just my humble opinion though.

Ovation

16th Aug 2011, 12:26

Harry Cooper wrote:

Oh and to whoever posted the irrelevant comment about the RFDS accident at Mount Gambier. The RFDS operates around 70,000 flights a year nationally. So 1 fatality in around 700,000 flights or on a better scale 1 fatality in 230,000,000 km flown is nowhere in the range of 1 fatality in 11,000 flights. Thats 63 fatalities for every 1 of the RFDS.

I'm sorry Doctor Harry but it's your flawed logic that is irrelevant.

I'm a Angel-Flight volunteer pilot and consider it a great honour to help somebody who would otherwise endure a long sometimes difficult road journey, or incur costs that would not be recoverable. A couple of times I've flown Wudinna-Parafield with the cutest 6 year old girl suffering from juvenile arthritis. For her the choice is an 80 min flight or a painful 7-8 hours by road.

With 2500+ hrs and CIRSE + PIFR I would like to think I'm mature and sensible enough to cancel due to WX, which I have done once. Angel Flight will then, if the departure point is serviced by RPT, arrange tickets.

Harry Cooper's reasoning is illogical and must be ignored, because no consideration is given to the total number of flights an AF pilot might fly when they're not operating AF. If an AF pilot does 63 PVT flights for every one AF, then statistically there is no difference in the fatality rate when comparing RFDS to private AF. My log book tells me I've done one AF for every 42 PVT flights and being unemployed for the last 9 yrs I have more availability than most.

jas24zzk

16th Aug 2011, 12:30

ITW,
when you finally get to an age where you fail your Class 1, and you revert to a Class 2 and inherent PPL, would you be happy to let your wife or son fly with YOU??? Because that is really the question you are asking.

Many AF pilots are former airline personel, but now they only hold PPL's. Does that make them less qualified? According to your post it does.

I learnt a long time ago, a flight is only as safe as the aircraft engineer and PIC choose to make it, no matter the qualification.

You make the remark about not having an IR....what if the PIC only had a PIFR, according to some around here, he is twice as dangerous as the CIR guy.

come on guys, get real.

jas24zzk

16th Aug 2011, 12:33

Ovation!...i think i might just give you one!

Kulwin Park

16th Aug 2011, 12:46

Without reading all the BS written above, it sounds like from reports that it may have been an unknown CFIT scenario? Ground reports of throttling back, etc (engine still working at low altitude).

Maybe the IFR instruments or GPS were giving false readings?? Anyway I don't know, just going on some reports. The paint scheme looked like LBE but I'm unsure what type of aircraft it was??

I hope we all learn from the investigation what happened.

And no i would not think it had anything to do with age of aircraft, other than servicibility of aircraft for type of mission conducted.

KP :(

jas24zzk

16th Aug 2011, 12:49

Aircraft i a PA28-180. Archer 1. Rego, as displayed on news is VH-POJ

PLovett

16th Aug 2011, 13:09

Of course its a bleedin' honour to help where otherwise someone far less fortunate than ourselves would be severely inconvenienced, but that is not the point.

Whenever we have passengers on board it is our duty as pilots to ensure that we do not unnecessarily increase the danger to them. Flying by its very nature has risks, a pilots job is to manage the risk to the point that the level of risk is acceptable.

When we have medical patients on board the care factor is increased. I was very conscious when I was flying aero-medical flights in the NT (not RFDS or NTAS) that I often had people who were totally incapable of making an emergency exit or at best would be handicapped in doing so.

From what has been published to date the aircraft may have been appropriate to the task if the flight was VFR but the weather and timing most certainly wasn't. I stand to be corrected but at present I believe the pilot's risk assessment and decision making was at fault. Given his passengers, that was inexcusable.

cloudhawke

16th Aug 2011, 13:34

Can any medical types comment on the effect of age on reducing the light sensitivity of the eye?

Avgas and Fanta

16th Aug 2011, 14:34

Quote:
Weather permitting I would prefer to be NVFR than IFR (at night) There is generally more light outside the cloud.

I was agreeing with you until you posted that gem...

Why? I don't ever remember seeing a rule that said you can NOT look at the instruments.

I have, lets just say a couple of hours up NVFR, and I have upgraded to IFR in anger at night, a total of 0 times. NVFR doesnt have to be scary. Its still safer than driving a car with all the idiots on the roads.

Wally Mk2

16th Aug 2011, 15:53

I think it's good having spirited debate here but a few are missing the point in some ways.
NVFR is fine under controlled conditions but when tasked as such for an AngleFlight then there would be some level of 'commercial' pressure upon the pilot & this then makes the job dangerous.

Angel flights carry sick people & their rele's etc that are NOT of an urgent nature otherwise the Air Ambo's would be behind the steering wheel. So what I believe the arrangements ought to be are only day VFR in a SE plane & IFR day or night in a Multi when it's safe to do so. In the case in question here NVFR (even partly) one has to ask.... what's the rush? I understand the girl & mum where on their way home or something to that effect if the wx was sus & unable to be completed in daylight then surely a pilot would say it's in our best interests to stay another night & proceed if safe to do so in the morning.
I see no urgent need to push a possible bad situation when these flights are made up of non urgent transfers.
The many years I flew sick people around (the world over) I always had in the back of my mind there's simply no healthy reason to go kill 4 or 5 people (Pilot/Dr/nurse etc) just trying to save one, sounds cruel I know but life is precious to us ALL. There where many times when I knew a very ill person was way out west requiring urgent transport but we never turned a wheel to retrieve them due a high risk of not making it out there never lone getting back all due WX, those where some of the worst soul searching times.

Terrific service but they have their place in the scheme of things.

Wmk2

VH-XXX

17th Aug 2011, 00:22

There is a moderately long skid mark leading up to the final resting place of the aircraft. It would be interesting to see the condition of the prop to determine how much power was being delivered at the time of impact. With a skid-mark of that length, one would normally expect to survive.

Avgas and Fanta

17th Aug 2011, 00:36

NVFR is fine under controlled conditions but when tasked as such for an AngleFlight then there would be some level of 'commercial' pressure upon the pilot & this then makes the job dangerous.

I have never flown for Angel Flight, but I doubt they would ever apply any presure on the pilots. (really, I would be surprised), but even if they do, at the end of the day the pilot is called the "pilot in command" for a reason. he/she is in command. If their is no cloud below 60,000 feet, and its a full moon, its a great night for VFR. If its scud at 3000ft, its probably a great night for a feed at the local pub.

Would I fly NVFR for Angel flight? Probably not, but thats just my option as pilot in command of my bug smasher.

Unfortunatly people have lost their loved ones in this case, and unfortunatly this will be a real issue for Angel Flight. I can just imagine the grief Angel Flight and the family of the PIC could receive over this. (potentialy emotional toll, legal issues and casa issues) which is a real shame when they were just helping familys out and giving a bit back to the comunity.

Should this mean the end of Angel Flight? Probably not
Will it mean the end of Angel Flight? Debatable. Really depends how this all goes.
Should this mean the end of NVFR? NO

UnderneathTheRadar

17th Aug 2011, 01:57

As a sometime AngelFlight pilot, there are some things on this thread that need clarifying.

1. All passengers are fully INFORMED of the circumstances of the flight (regs etc). However, I've never kidded myself that they UNDERSTAND the implications of what they're told. I believe that obligates me, as the pilot, to provide additional levels of safety over and above what is legally required. As Jabba said, when I fly myself or even my family, there is a risk profile known to me and entrusted to me by people I know & love and who know me. Where the 'stranger' element comes into it, I choose to apply a different risk profile which better reflects what I believe the expectations of an Angelflight passenger might be. Naturally it's subjective but is based around a thought that it's reasonable for Joe Bloggs off the street to understand that light aircraft crash more often than bigger ones but it's less likely that they'll understand that a private ops flight has less restrictive requirements than would be applied for Charter especially when flying IFR.

2. I think I've almost canceled as many Angelflights as I've flown. For reasons such as - running late so light will be an issue; TAF is legal but approaching possible requirement for me to do most/all of an approach and I'm not as current as I could be; tired - didn't sleep well last night; possible icing enroute with limited escape routes etc. All stuff I could have/would have still flown myself for. Never had anything other than 100% support from the staff and never felt that there was any thought I'd be overlooked in the future for consideration.

3. Comparisons to Med class flights are wrong. The yardstick for comparison should be a standard charter operator. Monday's flight could have been done by a 150hr CPL in a C182 by a charter operator with full commercial 'protection'. We can never know what the decision making process was by a 800 hour PPL but if pressure to go was a factor then I'd hazard a guess that a 150hr CPL might have felt even more pressure to go and so the flight would still have gotten airborne and we can only speculate how a 150 hour CPL would have reacted when confronted with the same set of circumstances. Therefore any arguments about %fatalities etc should be against the whole CHTR category and not just the RFDS as these are not medivac flights.

4. AngelFlight exists soley because we, Australian society, don't properly support regional communities in fair and reasonable access to healthcare. The quotes by RFDS, Air Ambos etc listed in this thread indicate that the government is not willing to support those who live in rural areas properly by providing cost effective and safe transport to medical services. And by safe, I mean not asking single mums with 3 kids, one terminally ill to get to appointments in Melbourne by whatever means necessary (i.e. driving) every couple of weeks. Other AngelFlight and Medivac pilots will attest that the trips back home tend to involve parents and kids sleeping from wheels up, often until after shutdown because they are so emotionally and physically buggered from what they've been through. I'd love to know the accident rate, compared to the general population, of people driving cars to/from hospitals from the country and then compare it to the number of patients flown home. Not to mention that the cost to the patients of 8+ hours of fuel each way does not get subsidised by anyone. My perfect outcome for AngelFlight would be that it's services are no longer required.

I hope this tragedy helps Angelflight learn and grow stronger because it still provides a valuable service that would not be replaceable under our current governmental system and would ultimately cause greater hardship and exposure to risk to those it helps.

UTR

CoodaShooda

17th Aug 2011, 03:02

Jaba

I agree your heart is in the right place, but its far from reality. One could argue that during the many long drives all these folk would have made over the years how many would have been killed in a car crash, given many are old, sick and tired mums etc etc. Despite GA stats I think the folk are at less risk. Hard to prove but a gut feeling.

I've had three insurance companies independently tell my employer that they consider me less at risk flying a Jabiru to Katherine and Tennant Creek than driving the Stuart Highway - and I fall well short of meeting the requirements for an AF pilot.

(As I have to visit Katherine four times a year and Tennant twice, who am I to disagree. :E)

andrewr

17th Aug 2011, 03:12

Whatever the actual cause of this crash, I think it will prompt a look at the way Angelflight operates. I am sure that Angelflight don't pressure pilots to fly. However, the nature of the operation means that pilots will often feel self imposed pressure.

Much of the safety of airlines comes from SOPs that are very conservative when compared to the actual capabilities of the aircraft and pilots. They have rules that take away much of the opportunity for a pilot to get into a risky situation.

Angelflight probably need to do the same, so that it doesn't always come down to the judgment of the pilot. Then the pilot has clear guidance where they must say "This flight doesn't meet the requirements, we can't go."

I don't know what they do currently, but some appropriately conservative rules might be:
- No night VFR, and VFR flights must have 60 minutes margin before last light
- For VFR, the forecast cloud base must be at least 2000' AGL along the planned route
- No single engine night IFR
- No more than 8 hours between first flight and end of Angelflight flying on that day for a pilot. (Media reports said that the pilot took off from Yarrawonga at 7:30am, which is a long day.)

These wouldn't be overly restrictive, but would go a long way to eliminating the most risky situations. The light and flight time requirements should be reasonably predictable at the time the flight is being scheduled.

meggo

17th Aug 2011, 03:23

Where to start? Every single point you make is sensitive & valued. Thanks for taking the time to put into words what many haven't had a chance to do. Can only endorse everything you comment upon and hope other posters ponder long & hard.
RIP these poor victims. I understand the young lass was on her final AF trip home having beaten a long term debilitating illness.

mostlytossas

17th Aug 2011, 03:41

I can't believe some of you guys. Willing CASA or some other Government Dept to make flying even more restrictive and ownerous than it already is.
Hell let's go the whole hog..All aircaft must have at least 3 turbine engines, a crew of 4 including navigator and radio operator (we can't have the pilots distracted from flying the aircraft now can we?) VFR daytime only with no more than 4 octas. Flight times not to exceed 2hrs in any 24hr period.
The fact of the matter is this pilot for all his good intensions flew NVFR in what has been described as clearly non night VMC conditions and unfortunatley paid the price.
Putting up new rules and conditions will not stop further accidents occuring if the current rules are not being adhered to already.
Sorry if that sounds harsh but that's the facts.

Howard Hughes

17th Aug 2011, 04:20

Some good comments Andrew R and UnderneathTheRadar!:ok:

Mostlytossas, no one is advocating increased regulation, simply for Angel Flight to have an introspective look at their operations. I suspect the Coroner will be making recommendations on how to mitigate risk factors in the future, I wouldn't be surprised if they look a lot like what Andrew has suggested.

All organisations take a long hard look at themselves after something like this happpens and I'm fairly sure Angel Flight will do the same.

PS: With regard to medical services in the bush, if someone requires urgent transportation they get it, if not they are left to make their own arrangements, this is no different to how patients are triaged in cities.

mostlytossas

17th Aug 2011, 04:52

Can't agree with you there Howard. Take a look at back posts. Some saying NVFR should not exist or single engine IFR etc, what arrant nonscence. I'm going to show my age here, but I remember being at Cudal many years ago when it used to be the headquarters for Hazelton airlines, (remember them) having an Cessna's radio repaired. I got talking to the chief pilot at the time who stated that very opinion that NVFR should not exist. Yet this same person was quite happy to have single pilots with few years experiance, flying old Chieftens IFR in all sorts of weather on RPT op's. Now I ask you what is more concerning. NVFR in VMC conditions with the pilot and his few passengers that agree with their own free will to fly with him, or upto 9 paying passengers sitting oblivious to the regulations behind some kid in icing/ stormy conditions?
A few short years following our discussion occured the Monarch crash at Young,then the Lord Howe Is crash into the ocean and finally the Whyalla airline crash. All if my memory serves me correctly, with young relatively inexperianced IFR pilots at the controls.
My point being it is not the rating that is dangerous, but how it is used by the pilot in command.

Howard Hughes

17th Aug 2011, 05:53

I think you are missing the point Mostly, I like many others have no qualms with NVFR, it is legal! My only question would be (and I think it is also the point others are trying to make), is does it have a place in what is effectively a 'quasi' commercial operation?

andrewr

17th Aug 2011, 06:06

So more restrictive than commercial ops?

Perhaps, given that these may be performed by private pilots. My list was meant as a suggestion not a prescription - of course any final rule would be different. They already require 250 hours PIC, which is more restrictive than commercial ops IIRC.

You might have more relaxed requirements for pilots with a CPL and/or charter category aircraft, although commercial operations also typically have an operations manual that will be more restrictive than the bare commercial regulations.

MakeItHappenCaptain

17th Aug 2011, 06:28

Not sure why you're referring to these accidents, tossas.
Monarch, yep, CFIT, but that pilot had almost 2000hrs TT and 400 on type. Not exactly inexperienced.

Lord Howe? From memory, the pilot had mechanical issues and Whyalla was a double engine failure due to the engines being run too lean under company SOPs.

Don't think accidents are purely the domain of inexperienced pilots. There are plenty of examples of experienced CFITs.

mickjoebill

17th Aug 2011, 07:20

News report say it took up to two hours for the accident site to be located by ground crews. Is this correct?

Was air support called for? but couldn't respond due weather or distance?

Mickjoebill

717tech

17th Aug 2011, 08:25

Someone said that AF require some dual flying before being approved for flights. I don't believe this is correct. I signed up but never did fly. They simply requested a photo copy of my license and log book totals. Unless things have changed....

ForkTailedDrKiller

17th Aug 2011, 08:33

Whether I am flying by myself, flying with members of my family, or flying members of someone elses family - same rules, same risk management, same decision making process!

Dr :8

Old Akro

17th Aug 2011, 09:43

Some points are being forgotten.
1. I believe this is the first accident that has occurred on an Angel Flight in 11,000 flights. If that had been 11,000 car trips, how many accidents would be expected? If an average round trip is (say) 500km this equates to 5.5 million km. The Lumley fleet benchmark is 1.5 accidents per 100,000km, so at best practice fleet accident rates this would be over 80 car accidents that would have occurred for these hospital transfers, the odds are that at least one one of these would have been fatal. I would contend that overall, Angel Flights are better than the other private alternatives.
2. We don't know what time the accident occurred. Depending on the media reports it was in somewhere between about 5:45 & 6:30pm. The published last light for Nhill on that day was 6:23pm. The crash site is less than 15 min from Nhill for a Cherokee 180. Its possible that the aircraft could have landed before last light if the flight was completed. I'm sure the experience of the day was different due to the cloud cover, but this was not a NVMC flight in the true sense. This was a flight that would have / should have finished in declining light at or near last light at a good, long sealed strip with good lighting, a Navaid and in an area of flat terrain with an equally good alternate nearby (Horsham). If the reported wheels up time of 4pm at Essendon is accurate the ETA at Nhill would have been 5:49pm, so maybe ATC vectors in Melbourne, or weather detours delayed the planned arrival time. Its not really a bad use of a NVMC rating to act as an fall back if the landing is done in low (pre-last light) light or a few minutes after last light.
3. There are a number of posts saying that Angel Flight should impose higher standards than CASA has set. Are we really suggesting that a not for profit organisation should be setting itself up as knowing better than the government regulator? And if Angel Flight creates its own regulations and there is another accident, does that mean Angel Flight is now responsible for justifying these standards? Angel Flight is not an aviation operator. Its more like a match making service between good Samaritan pilots and people in need. If the flight standards are inadequate, then they are equally inadequate for any of us who take mates for a fly and we should be looking to CASA to tighten its regulations. I don't think anyone really wants that.

At the end of the day, I don't believe this accident is about experience, training standards, or equipment. I think its mainly about weather and judgement and neither of those can be regulated. I'm sure that there are lessons to be learned and that's why the accident should be studied and analysed. But I'm doubtful that regulation is the solution.

Jabawocky

17th Aug 2011, 12:35

Whether I am flying by myself, flying with members of my family, or flying members of someone elses family - same rules, same risk management, same decision making process!

Dr http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/nerd.gif

Forkie has taken the words out of my mouth.......I was about to say, I have the same standards be it me or a plane full. I often tell folk who ask, I do not give a rats about thier ar$e, I am looking after mine! If yours is strapped to the same structure, it should be OK too!

I do not operate any different, but I do think others may not like being subjected to what we as pilots will accept in terms of weather/ride and having to divert etc. I can divert back to Brisbane, thats fine for me, for them they may be better driving or staying in a motel and not having to return and then have to do it anyway.

This was a VFR flight, NVFR has nothing to do with it. The pilot ran out of daylight and good weather, by all reports. That is IMC and IFR is required. NVFR requires LSALT until 3 miles etc etc etc, so he was not following any flight rules.

As Clinton has pointed out.........Insurance....and what do insurers do when its obvious the rules where not followed?

If you follow the rules and have a big bingle.......and most would agree that is rare, insurance is going to have to pay. Break a bunch......well you pay all the prices of your actions.

This will end in tears for all concerned just like so many others, a C206 YSBK-YBAF comes to mind a year or so back.:sad:

jas24zzk

17th Aug 2011, 12:37

Clinton,
AF do require you to provide proof of insurance/etc, as would anyone that organises this sort of thing.

My recollection, is that at some point QBE were somehow involved, but i can find no mention of them on the AF site.

MakeItHappenCaptain

17th Aug 2011, 22:23

This will end in tears for all concerned just like so many others, a C206 YSBK-YBAF comes to mind a year or so back.

VH-JDQ.
He had just over 100 hrs TT and killed one of my friends.:(

Lookleft

17th Aug 2011, 23:13

There will be changes made to the way AF operate as a result of this unfortunate accident. You can't simply say "oh well it was all legal" and continue with business as usual. IMHO the minimum requirement will have to be changed to the pilots having at least a PIFR if not a Class 1 and all flights conducted as IFR. It is no different to the changes required from EMS rotary operations and parachute ops when there were fatalities.

PLovett

17th Aug 2011, 23:27

Lookleft, I don't think changing flights to IFR is going to help, in fact it could make it worse by tempting pilots to continue when they should not.

Angel Flight is non-emergency, there is no pressure in these flights to get through. It would be preferable for standards similar to those suggested by Andrewr earlier, to be implemented. All of their pilots need to have it firmly fixed in their minds that they don't have to be heros; that it is far preferable to be on the ground sometimes; and that another 12 to 24 hours does not matter.

Lookleft

18th Aug 2011, 00:02

That is also the problem with VFR, pilots are tempted to go when they shouldn't. The ATSB files have more records of VFR into IFR fatal PVT ops than IFR PVT ops. They have also released several studies into VFR into IFR because it keeps happening and predominately private pilots are not getting the message. Even though AF is a charity organisation it can't afford to have a repeat of this accident. The ATSB report will eventually release its recommendations but based on its studies of VFR into IFR I think it is most likely that instrument rated pilots will be part of the recommendations.

UnderneathTheRadar

18th Aug 2011, 00:04

Hey Jabba

Forkie has taken the words out of my mouth.......I was about to say, I have the same standards be it me or a plane full. I often tell folk who ask, I do not give a rats about thier ar$e, I am looking after mine! If yours is strapped to the same structure, it should be OK too!

Back in post 15 you implied that you have cancelled flights for others then gone flying yourself?
When I talk about different standards for AF - it's not just a safety factor that I'm applying - it's an allowance for making sure I don't frighten those who I don't know by needing to divert, putting them in rough or turbulent conditions and especially making sure I don't end up with hysterical passengers - because I don't know them.

I'm quite fond of my ar$e too!

The insurance one is interesting, unlike jas24kk, I don't think I was asked to provide insurance information (that I can recall) and even if I did (it was ages ago) then there is no ongoing requirement to prove that it's still valid. I've never had any indication that AF hold any kind of insurance policy to protect the pilots (or passengers for that matter). Jas may be confusing with FunFlight who do hold insurance for all passengers (donated by QBE) and prior to this, used to mandate that current insurance had to be proven prior to each FunFlight flight.

My understanding of insurance is that your hull liability may be void if you break the rules but they will still pay out personal liability to passengers (and maybe persue you afterwards?) - but I'm not 100% sure on that and if that's standard to aviation policies for private aircraft.

The AF statement that pilots have to hold CASA mandated insurance is bit of a furphy though as there is no compulsary insurance requirement for private ops and I know many self-insured pilots.

However whatever AF or other insurances are held by whom and protecting whom, the lawyers will run straight to whoever they can identify has the biggest policy and persue them as there is no point chasing someone who isn't going to be able to pay.

UTR

Jabawocky

18th Aug 2011, 00:34

Back in post 15 you implied that you have cancelled flights for others then gone flying yourself?
When I talk about different standards for AF - it's not just a safety factor that I'm applying - it's an allowance for making sure I don't frighten those who I don't know by needing to divert, putting them in rough or turbulent conditions and especially making sure I don't end up with hysterical passengers - because I don't know them.

Gooday UTR :ok:

Read my last post again in its full context, you have just taken only half the context.....make a good journo there mate ;)........or maybe I did not make it clear:ouch:

I have cancelled on a day when I went flying myself, and would have happily had anyone else on board, but..........I would not like to have launched for Grafton, with tempo's on the forecast, arrived over the field where they can hear me come and go doing a MA and come back for a second one perhaps and then divert. And leave them wondering if I was coming back, crashed, and then when its all too late miss the appointment.

In this case we spoke the night before, mother was fuelled up for the 5 hour trip just in case, and at 4.30am I gave her a call and explained the wx which she could see outside her kitchen window, and gave her the option. She had already decided with my briefing the night before that it could be 50/50 or worse so, plan B was executed.

If you get what I am saying, I have the same operational standard, learned a lot from Forkie, Chuckles and all my airline and RFDS mates, and apply that thought process to every flight. What I do not do is force my level of tolerence for weather, ride and comfort and the chances of diverting upon them.

Theodore is a great example, done a few there and cancelled or delayed some, no RNAV, and the nearest one is an hours drive or so away at Biloela, so why launch and then let them down. Dropping some elderly lady off at Biloela late in the afternoon or evening because you can't get in, or taking them back to Brisbane is just not what its all about.

I hope that makes sense.:ok:

QSK?

18th Aug 2011, 01:04

I would not be surprised if CASA requires AF Oz to increase its pilot experience requirements in line with recentt USA experience
Angel Flight Groups Increase Volunteer Pilot Hour Requirements

By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor

After decades of safe operation, last summer Angel Flight organizations had by August seen three fatal crashes; this summer some of their volunteer pilot requirements will change. A recent letter co-signed by Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic Chairman (AFMA), Steve Craven; president of Mercy Medical Airlift, Ed Boyer; and Executive Director for Airlift Hope America, Jim Smith written to volunteer pilots listed new pilot qualifications/safety standards effective July 15, 2009. Pilots wishing to participate with those organizations must now have a minimum total time of 500 hours (unchanged) with no less than 400 hours (up from 250) as Pilot in Command with a minimum 50 hours in make and model. Other qualifications for any aircraft to be used for Angel Flights include a minimum of $1 million liability insurance with no less than $100,000 per seat. (There are other requirements, check with the specific groups you're interested in joining.) Contacted Friday for comment, AFMA's Craven told AVweb, "While we had been contemplating increased pilot qualifications and insurance requirements for some time, we were motivated by the fact that after 30+ years, millions of miles and hundreds of thousands of needy patients flown safely, last year the Angel Flight world experienced its first fatal accident." The letter also announced future steps intended to establish a "culture of safety" within the participating organizations.

Mandatory annual recertifications, plus mandatory affirmation that all qualifications are met prior to an accepted flight, will be "built into our flight coordination system," states the letter. The letter also outlines a series of programs intended to develop a "culture of safety" within the Angel Flight community. Safety programs to include an online safety forum, a separate online safety page and a pilot mentorship program to help initiate new pilots into the organization with an emphasis on safety. "We intend to create a positive culture of safety in our organizations with experienced safety focused volunteer pilots," said Craven.

Old Akro

18th Aug 2011, 01:15

Sitting in my airconditioned corner office with a 24 inch computer screen and high speed broadband its pretty easy to say that this was a VFR to IFR accident and that the pilot should not have proceeded. But standing on a windswept tarmac at Essendon after having successfully flown from Yarrawonga, I'm not sure that the decision was as clear cut.

I flew into Melbourne as a passenger on a kero burner and we landed at about 6:30pm. We seemed to do the Monty 5 STAR which involves a fairly circuitous lap of Melbourne going the long way to land on rwy 09. I reckon we did this at about 5,000ft in clear skies and excellent visibility. Judging by the view from the 737 window, the Melbourne basin had very little cloud below 5,000 ft at that time. It also worth noting that the TAF's for Horsham / Nhill can be pretty inaccurate, especially since the flight was to be toward the end of the TAF validity. There is no RPT in the Ballarat / Horsham / Nhill corridor and I suspect for that reason the TAF's do not appear to be as good as (say) the Hamilton / Portland / Mt Gambier corridor. Lets also remember that a VFR pilot getting an updated forecast from Melbourne FS in peak hour is like pulling teeth. Nhill and Horsham both have AWIS, but neither are transmitted on radio frequencies. So if the pilot wanted a mid flight weather update, he needed to be on the mobile phone. Without the old Flightwatch service or the US style airborne weather services, we really all need (Telstra Next G) smart phones now to access NAIPS and look at weather radar and call up AWIS services in flight. But AsA has never told us that we are increasingly on our own.

The conclusion from this is that the pilot probably had way less than perfect weather information because the system we live in has degraded the available briefing service available to VFR pilots. But, I'll bet this is a topic that doesn't rate a mention in the ATSB report. The pilot had also flown from Yarrawonga, so had recent direct observation of the weather on a significant part of the route, so he was probably relying a fair bit on his own assessment.

Its undeniable that the pilot has made a wrong decision, but I don't think we should be too hasty to cast stones, one might bounce back on the glass of our air-conditioned offices. I suspect he has made a number of decisions each of which are reasonable in isolation (if not perfect) but they cumulated to put him in a bad space.

Its very very sad and I want to understand the accident to learn from it. But I'm no where near ready to condemn the pilot.

Wallsofchina

18th Aug 2011, 01:26

Old Akro, I think your last two posts probably sum up the situation precisely.

All the rest is politics.

The standard of weather reporting HAS slipped over the years.

Regardless of that, there were decisions to be made well before it started to become dark over sparsely populated wheat country.

Old Akro

18th Aug 2011, 01:31

QSK. I'm sure you're correct that a increasing of the minimum requirements is inevitable. Angel Flight did tighten its procedures about a year ago (as a proactive response to the US accidents) to require certified copies of licences and medicals and each pilot is require to reconfirm his or her currency at each flight allocation. But Angel Flight's experience requirements are already well in excess of CASA's requirements for a CPL pilot flying charter, so the question is how far ahead of CASA do you need to go? Already, a person could fly as a charter passenger with a Pilot who would not be allowed top conduct the same flight with the same passenger if it was allocated by Angel Flight rather than booked privately by the passenger.

The pilot concerned in this incident is reported to have 800 hours. Do we make the minimum 1,000 hours? Then if there is another accident do we make it 1,500 hours? Then if there's another....?

As I said earlier, this is about weather (and delivering weather information to pilots) and judgement. We need to look beyond rules to improve either of these.

VH-XXX

18th Aug 2011, 02:13

There are 1,000 hour pilots that I'm not happy for those close to me to fly with, so it's hard to draw a line anywhere.

TriMedGroup

18th Aug 2011, 03:19

It also worth noting that the TAF's for Horsham / Nhill can be pretty inaccurate, especially since the flight was to be toward the end of the TAF validity. There is no RPT in the Ballarat / Horsham / Nhill corridor and I suspect for that reason the TAF's do not appear to be as good as (say) the Hamilton / Portland / Mt Gambier corridor. Lets also remember that a VFR pilot getting an updated forecast from Melbourne FS in peak hour is like pulling teeth. Nhill and Horsham both have AWIS, but neither are transmitted on radio frequencies.

The TAF's are horrendous, especially as you say toward the end of their validity. This is made worse by the METAR's basically being a bunch of obliques and no AWIS available via VHF.

So if the pilot wanted a mid flight weather update, he needed to be on the mobile phone. Without the old Flightwatch service or the US style airborne weather services, we really all need (Telstra Next G) smart phones now to access NAIPS and look at weather radar and call up AWIS services in flight. But AsA has never told us that we are increasingly on our own.

In this day and age it is astounding that not every pilot is using an iPhone on NextG (I am in no way suggesting the pilot of this flight did not have one), pretty much all of VIC has reception and the ability to have any weather forecast or report that you want without having to bother ATC and then write down the details, coupled with the BOM radar and access to all the AWIS sites via telephone is a much better proposition than flight watch in my opinion.

The conclusion from this is that the pilot probably had way less than perfect weather information because the system we live in has degraded the available briefing service available to VFR pilots. But, I'll bet this is a topic that doesn't rate a mention in the ATSB report. The pilot had also flown from Yarrawonga, so had recent direct observation of the weather on a significant part of the route, so he was probably relying a fair bit on his own assessment.

If you have an iPhone then you have acccess to the most comprehensive briefing service i have come across.

Also I'm not sure where you think Yarrawonga is, but the flight from there to Essendon is no where near the Essendon-Nhill track and seeing as the weather comes from the west, and the flight to Essendon happened 10 hours earlier according to another post I dont see how he could have observed the expected weather for his flight to Nhill?

Jack Ranga

18th Aug 2011, 03:56

I think twice about getting in the back seat of a car with someone I don't know.

Based on my experiences in the aviation industry over the last 25 years I DONOT get in the back seat of a light aircraft unless I KNOW the pilot and his/her experience.

Members of the public have a right to know what level of safety is being provided on any flight. Risk Management.

How that is to be relayed to the public, I don't know?

Jack Ranga

18th Aug 2011, 03:59

Lets also remember that a VFR pilot getting an updated forecast from Melbourne FS in peak hour is like pulling teeth.

I don't think "it was all to hard" goes well at a board of inquiry...

All Air Traffic Controllers are aware of this. I don't know of any ATC who has said 'go away' or 'not available due workload'

Ask and you SHALL receive. I'd be a brave ATC who did otherwise.

Old Akro

18th Aug 2011, 04:16

I've been denied requests for area & TAF forecasts on area frequency. Other times its been given in what I'd describe as a hostile tone and manner. And the Melbourne frequencies at 4 - 6pm can be just hard to get a word in. Please don't take this as criticism of the controllers, its the environment that AsA have put them in that I'm intending to comment upon. You can only stretch a rubber band so far.

And for Tri-Med, I think you missed that it appears the flight was YMEN - KIM - YBDG - YNHL. The YMEN - YBDG leg is the general area he would have flown through from Yarrawonga to Essendon - or at least he would have had visibility across to Bendigo and beyond on the trip down.

Jack Ranga

18th Aug 2011, 04:42

Old Akro,

Send me a PM with details please :ok:

VH-XXX

18th Aug 2011, 04:48

Not suggesting they are less safe than production aircraft, however I was surprised that AF allow the use of experimental amateur built aircraft due to public perceptions.

Jack Ranga

18th Aug 2011, 04:55

That's another thing the public need to know triple. And the way I explain the risk is:

I've driven all the rivets in this aircraft, I have a personal stake in them being as close to perfect as possible. The alternative is to have a minimum wage employee driving the rivets who couldn't give a rats arse whether it's done properly or not!

framer

18th Aug 2011, 05:21

Im not a fan of the conventional NVFR. To be honest I think it's rubbish, it is a good way to end up IIMC or disorientated,
Yip.

With 2500+ hrs and CIRSE + PIFR I would like to think I'm mature and sensible enough to cancel due to WX, which I have done once. Angel Flight will then, if the departure point is serviced by RPT, arrange tickets.

Thats great, you obviously have lots of experience but what if you just had a bare NVFR? would you be as well equiped to make those decisions or to cope if you made a bad one?

Maybe the IFR instruments or GPS were giving false readings?? More likely that the bum and ears were giving false readings IMO.

I think it's good having spirited debate here but a few are missing the point in some ways.
NVFR is fine under controlled conditions but when tasked as such for an AngleFlight then there would be some level of 'commercial' pressure upon the pilot & this then makes the job dangerous.

Spot on.
I have never flown for Angel Flight, but I doubt they would ever apply any presure on the pilots.
They don't have to, the pilots do it to themselves. It's in our nature and takes experience (mostly bad) to overcome.

If their is no cloud below 60,000 feet, and its a full moon, its a great night for VFR.
You'd think so wouldn't you. With 1000hrs TT in 2.5 years, and a current NVRF and an expired CMEIR I departed into a black hole about 10 years ago in a BE-58 and the somotagravic effect that had nearly ended it for me. Now with a lot more experience (19 type ratings) after the last ten years full time flying I look back and am surprised it doesn't happen more often. Would this accident have been tasked to an ifr pilot if NVFR didn't exist?

The fact of the matter is this pilot for all his good intensions flew NVFR in what has been described as clearly non night VMC conditions and unfortunatley paid the price.
Putting up new rules and conditions will not stop further accidents occuring if the current rules are not being adhered to already.
It wasn't only him that paid the price.
One element of the cause is that he was leagally allowed by CASA to fly NVRF. If he didn't have that silly rating he wouldn't have been in a position to make the decision he did. What would have happened if the rating didn't exist? AF would have rung someone with an IFR rating, the aircraft would have been at a minimum of LSALT being flown by someone with more training under his/her belt than the accident pilot, and they would have been at a safer altitude.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the pilot that he couldn't make the flight without a risk of being caught in darkness and he would have canned it until the next day. If the NVRF rating was pulled or the 'under the hood' time increased to the same as an IFR rating , the patient would still get there, just later or in a different plane.
I think its mainly about weather and judgement and neither of those can be regulated. No. But you can make the descision much simpler for the pilot if NVFR isn't an option....either do more training, or stay on the ground until it's light.
IMHO the minimum requirement will have to be changed to the pilots having at least a PIFR if not a Class 1 and all flights conducted as IFR.
i see where you're going but don't think it needs to be that extreme, they could have VFR flights, as long as it's daylight. Have a rule that if you can't be on the ground 30mins prior to ECT then it'l be done the next day or handed over to an IFR pilot.
They have also released several studies into VFR into IFR because it keeps happening and predominately private pilots are not getting the message
Because they don't know how 'out of shape' it can get very quickly until they have seen it happen. Whats the answer? Recognise human nature's drive to get the job done and eternal optimism that "it'l all be ok" and prevent them from being in rapidly fading light, navigating visually, and hesitant to punch up into cloud because they have only a few hours on instruments from quite a while back.ie, get rid of the 'quasi-ifr rating' you can either fly on instruments or you can't.
Sitting in my airconditioned corner office with a 24 inch computer screen and high speed broadband its pretty easy to say that this was a VFR to IFR accident and that the pilot should not have proceeded. But standing on a windswept tarmac at Essendon after having successfully flown from Yarrawonga, I'm not sure that the decision was as clear cut.

dead right. A shame he had to make that decision.
Its undeniable that the pilot has made a wrong decision, but I don't think we should be too hasty to cast stones, one might bounce back on the glass of our air-conditioned offices. I suspect he has made a number of decisions each of which are reasonable in isolation (if not perfect) but they cumulated to put him in a bad space.

Agreed. A shame he didn't have to say "sorry folks, we have to cancel until the tomorrow but the good news is I'm doing my training for an IFR rating and from November I'l be able to fly at night as well"
The pilot concerned in this incident is reported to have 800 hours. Do we make the minimum 1,000 hours? Then if there is another accident do we make it 1,500 hours? Then if there's another....?

Nup, we just give em clear cut boundries as to what flights require a high level of instrument flying skills and take away the muddy water in between.

I think AF do a great job. I don't know if this accident was caused by anything the pilot did or didn't do. I just think it's a silly rating that shouldn't exist. I respect all of the pilots opinions who think otherwise but wanted to put my opinion across.
Cheers, Framer

Jabawocky

18th Aug 2011, 05:51

Old Akro

18th Aug 2011, 06:39

Framer

You've forgotten that this does not appear to be a NVMC accident. The accident was reported by the media after dark, but it probably occurred 15 - 30 minutes before last light.

It has been reported that the aircraft was wheels off at Essendon at 4pm which would give it an ETA Nhill about 44 minutes before last light.

The rules and decision making relating to this accident are day VFR ones.

Kharon

18th Aug 2011, 11:12

For a “commercial” operator there is a very real and carefully managed CASA requirement to 'get it right', (God bless 'em). It's a tough process to gain an approval to conduct 'patient' transport. (AWK, AOC - Ambulance function ).

They (CASA) seem to me to have been, for once remarkably tolerant of this “quasi” legal operation. Now we have bodies.

I am no great fan of the current CASA, but; the management of icing, bad light, delayed departure, thunderstorm activity etc. etc should preclude the operation of, for the most part, enthusiastic “amateurs” on any sort of "schedule' which does not include them or theirs. (I know, believe me, I know).

The night sky, a front or even an unscheduled delay is, without a doubt, beyond the training level of an enthusiastic amateur, reality; my Mama could do a flight from A to B, IF; and I do stress IF it all goes according to Hoyle. Day or night,

I never flew with a Hoyle, only a Murphy.

While (seriously) I applaud the efforts of these people, I have real concerns about insurance cover, regulatory ramification and; that the CASA may decide that compared to the RFDS standard, this service, whilst laudable is, perhaps only marginally safe, let alone legal, and that the pilots compared to the average 'commercially' operating model are not quite up to the regulatory mark. Irrespective of "hours".

Thunderstorms, icing, EOD, systems failure, performance capability, and the pilot's approach to a very difficult job, without any formal control, training, operational control or “big brother' supervision has got to be 'fraught' with both legal and operational Cheese holes.

Re think required – I think so, (Tax deductions aside – of course).

Selah.

havick

18th Aug 2011, 11:32

Kharon has summed up the points I were trying to raise earlier.

jas24zzk

18th Aug 2011, 12:01

Interesting point Kharon. The reality, is that if you take away something like AF, the pilots will lose nothing. They will still spend the same amount of money flying their aeroplanes. The only losers will be the patients and thier families.

Really what was Victoria's 'un-natural' body count in the last 24 hours?? couple in cars, (oh you don't hear about the ones that die more than 8 hours later) and a couple in the city that were shot..... go figure.

One element of the cause is that he was leagally allowed by CASA to fly NVRF. If he didn't have that silly rating he wouldn't have been in a position to make the decision he did. What would have happened if the rating didn't exist? AF would have rung someone with an IFR rating, the aircraft would have been at a minimum of LSALT being flown by someone with more training under his/her belt than the accident pilot, and they would have been at a safer altitude.

So what we are gunna end up with is someone with an IFR aeroplane and rating, toying with freezing levels and and aeroplane not equipped to be there.....just great, remove one danger and replace it with another :ok:

Just plum!

Kharon

18th Aug 2011, 13:04

Killed by "professional" drivers ?? - No. God help a (amateur) bus driver who, for the best of reasons, killed a load of kids, was not current or was not "qualified", according to the regulatory powers.

Turn this one around; if it had been a "commercial" operation and had killed a couple of underprivileged folk, a kitten traveling as freight or even dared to provide a 'pilot' marginally not current, an AOC (and jobs) would be long gone.

Never send a boy to do a man's job and always - avoid high performance weather in a low performance aircraft.

Selah.

framer

18th Aug 2011, 19:42

So what we are gunna end up with is someone with an IFR aeroplane and rating, toying with freezing levels and and aeroplane not equipped to be there.....just great, remove one danger and replace it with another http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

There will always be risk, but I think it would be a more acceptable level of risk if there was no 'quasi-ifr' rating. Thats just my opinion. If AF wanted a flight to end within 30 mins of ECT and they didn't have the option of a VFR flight to do it, they would schedule an IFR pilot or wait. The difference being that the pilot has done more training and the aircraft is better equiped. Tracking A-B at MSA on a radial is easier than scooting around hills in the dark.
You've forgotten that this does not appear to be a NVMC accident.
Fair point. This may or may not have anything to do with the NVFR rating. If it turns out that he had one though, I contend that that would have placed pressure on him to continue to destination utilizing the rating when it became obvious that it was getting dark and that if he didn't have the rating he may have made different choices.
But you're right. This accident may have nothing to do with having the rating. If he was only day VFR qualified though It's harder for me to understand the decision making process.

Old Akro

18th Aug 2011, 23:27

Framer, by my arithmetic, the flight had an ETA of 44 min before last light. So by your guidelines there would have been no concern about conducting it as a VFR flight.

Karom has introduced so many red herrings its hard to deal with them all. But there is no suggestion (other than yours) that Thunderstorms, icing, mechanical failure, or aircraft performance had any role in the accident. Its debatable whether or night darkness (possibly ahead of declared last light) had anything to do with the accident.

I don't know where the insurance argument has come from either. I don't think there is any suggestion that the insurance cover for the passengers would be any worse than a commercial operation. Indeed their situation may be significantly better than if there was a $2 Pty Ltd holding company behind an AOC.

And what with the final quip about tax deductions? Tax deductions don't have anything to do with this. None of the pilots, or ground crew gain any tax benefit whatsoever. I'm not even sure that Angel Flight has DGR status. In fact it costs me quite a bit to do Angel Flights.

Finally, there was another really tragic accident last night by one of the best equipped operators with a highly skilled professional pilot. All of those who have criticised the Angel Flight operation would do well to reflect that similar accidents can happen to the best pilots, with the best training.

mostlytossas

19th Aug 2011, 00:04

Took the words right out of my mouth Old Arko.
Last nights tragic accident was probably another case of flying below lowest safe(because you cannot hit the ground at speed above it) by a very experianced operator in a twin turbine helicopter ( therefore I'm guessing not engine failure but we will wait and see).
Proof that it is not the rating that is dangerous but rather non compliance with the rules/common sense.
So what now Framer &co? Ban single pilot IFR perhaps?

HarleyD

19th Aug 2011, 03:05

Old Akro, and others,

I think that many here are missing the point, the prescriptive response of attenpting to cure symptoms by placing enhanced standards is not a real solution. You can demand high experience and prohibit some types of operation and event secify acceptable aircraft types, without oversight it is completely pointless, accidents based upon the lack of compliance, with even simple standards will still occur.

An organization such as AF has a public face that has an implicit level of care and professionalism, it advertises on the Telly, and 'tasks' missions. , there is therefore a perception that there is not just an individual taking responsiblity for flight standards, but that thee is an organizational structure that provides oversight and attempts to ensure compliance with the required standards, whatever they may be.

The commercial equivalent has an AOC , a Company Ops Manual and a Chief Pilot as a minimum. pilot currency, validity, and suitablity is closely scrutinized and guidance, advice and support is available form the CP for every flight. individual flights are authorized based on these and other factors.

Records of renewals, flight reviews, 20.11, medicals and DFT have tabs kept on them and this is the sort of thing that AF could do well to emulate. rather than respond to the knee jerk and just demand higher experience levels. this is pointless in the extreme as are the suggestions that restricting the permitted flight classification, or numerical quantity of power-plants are viable solutions.

Keep the standards simple, but apply due diligence to satisfying the customer that there is effective oversight. Just asking the PIC if they are up to speed is not enough for a commercial operation, and it should not be enough for such a worthwhile organization as AF. Oversight and scrutiny it is a means of DEMONSTRATING active duty of care, not just a passive request.

When I read ANO 48 I believe that FDT does not apply to private ops, however CASA sometimes has a different slant on this particular matter, regarding duty time for private ops. this matter could also be addressed in a COM for AF. it beggars credulity that a PPL could legally have a huge TOD, even if small FT, and judge their own competence and rest state, without oversight or supervision, then take off on a 'tasking' for which they perceive they have a duty to conduct, even if it was within the legal requirements for a private op. Commercial standards should apply, even if the flight crew are PPL.

This may or may not have affected the outcome of this particular flight. who knows, but it could easily help in the future.

HD

TunaBum

19th Aug 2011, 06:42

It is the case that even if an aircraft is insured, if the flight was a piviate flight (as this was) and if the pilot breached regulations that resulted in the accident, the insurer would be within their rights to refuse the ensuing passenger liability claims in addition to the hull claim.

It would be untidy if AF pax aren’t necessarily covered by insurance

I can think of a few words other than "untidy"! :eek:

TB

Jabawocky

19th Aug 2011, 06:44

It is a requirement.

But we all know insurance is a great thing......until there is a big claim :sad:

framer

19th Aug 2011, 06:51

Framer, by my arithmetic, the flight had an ETA of 44 min before last light. So by your guidelines there would have been no concern about conducting it as a VFR flight.

Fair point. I don't know if that is correct but it could well be. It still doesn't change my opinion of the NVFR rating though.

Proof that it is not the rating that is dangerous but rather non compliance with the rules/common sense.

Without getting into the fact that helicopters crash more often than fixed wings, how many commercial twin turbine helicopter flights proceed incident free every day compared to private NVFR fixed wing private flights every day?...Thats like saying that more people are killed in road car crashes than in road motorbike crashes therefore car travel is more dangerous.
So what now Framer &co? Ban single pilot IFR perhaps?
Nup, just the NVFR rating that allows pilots with very little training on instruments to end up in conditions where they need to fly on instruments to survive.
The fact is, that if you fly at night there are times when you need to be flying soley by reference to your instruments and I personally don't believe that the NVFR rating prepares people well enough for that situation.
It feels like people think I'm making a judgement on their abilities or something from the responses. I'm not. I just don't think the rating prepares people well enough. I understand that others don't agree with me and thats fine.
Cheers, Framer

Frank Arouet

19th Aug 2011, 07:22

framer;

Have you read the NVFR syllabus? It clearly lays down what conditions are NVFR and what is not. Just like day VFR but with a navaid endorsement and instrument skills. (there used to be a class 4 day rating). So by this reckoning, is having additional skills a danger to normal day VFR.

Day VFR requirement for end of daylight doesn't co-incide with calculated end of daylight BTW. Nor does helicopter visual reference mirror fixed wing VFR.

framer

19th Aug 2011, 19:49

Have you read the NVFR syllabus? It clearly lays down what conditions are NVFR and what is not. Just like day VFR but with a navaid endorsement and instrument skills.
I haven't read it recently and if it has changed in the last decade to require the same number of hours under the hood as an IFR rating then I'l shift from my current position and consider my other posts to be in error. Is that the case? How many hours under the hood are required in 2011 for the NVFR?
Just like day VFR but with a navaid endorsement and instrument skills. Yeah I remember that from when I had one. Do you think that the 'instrument skills' are robust enough considering the situations you can easily get yourself into flying NVFR? ie black hole situations? I don't. Thats my whole point. Either axe it, or up the training on the clocks so that when the pilot becomes confused they have the training to revert to the correct attitude and power settings even though their ears and bum are screaming at them to do something else. Thats still my opinion after the debate thus far but I will happily change it if you can point out why my position isn't right. Cheers.

Al Fentanyl

20th Aug 2011, 01:43

It is not Red Tape to develop a position wherein an otherwise innocent / uneducated passenger can reasonably expect to survive a flight. Said passenger has grown up with motorcars and has some level of understanding of the risks associated therewith. Airline travel in Australia is statistically the safest way to travel and that is also generally accepted amongst the general population, but Joe Public does not necessarily have the same level of understanding relating to light aeroplanes.

The recent study released by ATSB shows GA Charter is 4.3 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than RPT operations. GA private ops are higher risk again. How many AF passengers would know this? The safest GA operation is EMS, despite their operations in all weathers and at all hours into often rudimentary landing sites. In light of this, and the Sydney Mojave crash, perhaps NSW Health should reconsider their 'lowest bidder' air ambulance operation. RFDS might not be the cheapest air ambulance service, but they are the safest.

In Qld, non-urgent patients (and if necessary escorts) are eligible to be carried by airline at no cost for specialist treatment not available locally, to a suitable major regional centre or the State Capital, and once there they have any required accommodation subsidised. Non-urgent patients whose condition requires in-flight management are transported by RFDS. Is this not the case in the rest of the country?

I was an AF pilot. At that time, there was no form of pilot checking, other than holding a copy of licence & medical on file. It was up to the pilot to declare whether they ere legally and operationally up to the task, when they either bid for a mission or were called by the coordinators.

Is AF actually a private operation? One of the criteria of the definition (hire or reward) is that the pilot receives no benefit, but AF does provide fuel through Air BP which surely constitutes 'reward', doesn't it?

A 'private' operation, where there is a well-funded administrative base, which advertises its service heavily in mainstream media, where pilots and aircraft are 'tasked' on 'missions' with some form of time constraint (appointments etc) doesn't sound much like a 'private' operation.

The AF website declares it pilots to be "heroes', and lists a 'mission log'. This underlying philosophy is one of the key points identified in the US study into EMS crashes.

This sad event will raise many questions, questions that probably should have been raised before the show got off the ground.

mostlytossas

20th Aug 2011, 02:58

In the Weeds, Perhaps you should contribute to the lake eyre thread instead of this one where the main consensus is that it was likely a case of disorientation on takeoff in a black hole scenario. Others words not mine though I gotta agree it is starting to look that way. You are obviously far superior in all matters aeronautical to the rest of us.
But back to the point of this thread, it is not the rating that makes a flight unsafe but how it is conducted and the fact you can never avoid pilot error entirely. How do you explain the Air France crash into the ocean then? Even the French safety inspectors put it down partly to pilot error for failure to reconise and recover from a stall.

Frank Arouet

20th Aug 2011, 04:39

framer;

Your post in reply to mine has haunted me in that you are essentially right and I have been just another rating collector. I say this without malice because I now see what I did to gain (the then), class 3 rating was to do the simulator work associated with it and collect a NVFR, class 4, along the way with the SE night flights.

Despite rarely using it to flight plan except for late arrivals it gave me little real need of the paperwork, it's just a VFR rating that extends the EOD to me.

In the US a VFR pilot can fly day or night and there is no such rating.

It's either VFR or it's not regardless of time of day.

Perhaps Australia could unburden itself of more red tape with a simple night check- and for cross country's add on Navaid endorsements to his day VFR.

However you simply can't have a bit each way.

Avgas172

20th Aug 2011, 12:33

Any further news on the mother?
A172

Avgas172

20th Aug 2011, 13:04

A spokeswoman for the Royal Melbourne Hospital said Mrs Twigg's condition had improved from critical to serious overnight.

Mrs Twigg's husband, Len, is travelling to Melbourne today from their hometown of Nhill to be by his wife's side.

Read more: Plane crash mum's condition improves | Jacinda Twigg, Don Kernot (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/plane-crash-mums-condition-improves-20110817-1ixg1.html#ixzz1VZd7T2nO)

Good News,
cheers
A172

Up-into-the-air

21st Aug 2011, 05:57

Come on - don't try to blame the PA31 for Monarch or Whyalla.

Whyalla Incident:

The link with Whyalla to a regulator who blamed every thing else except themselves is apparent from the civil law case in the US - CASA and a failure to deal with an AD on TIO-540 crankshafts and properly promulgate information.

In the case of Monarch - from the ATSB report:

On Friday 11 June 1993, at about 1918 EST, Piper PA31-350 Navajo Chieftain aircraft, VH-NDU, while on a right base leg for a landing approach to runway 01 in conditions of low cloud and darkness, struck trees at a height of 275 feet above the elevation of the aerodrome at Young, New South Wales, and crashed. The aircraft, which was being operated as Monarch Airlines flight OB301 on a regular public transport service from Sydney to Young, was destroyed by impact forces and post crash fire. All seven occupants, including the two pilots, suffered fatal injuries.
The investigation found that the circumstances of the accident were consistent with
controlled flight into terrain. Descent below the minimum circling altitude without
adequate visual reference was the culminating factor in a combination of local
contributing factors and organisational failures. The local contributing factors included poor weather conditions, equipment deficiencies, inadequate procedures, inaccurate visual perception, and possible skill fatigue. Organisational failures were identified relating to the management of the airline by the company, and the regulation and licensing of its operations by the Civil Aviation Authority.

Not the fault of the PA31-350 at all.

Frank Arouet

21st Aug 2011, 08:54

equipment deficiencies

Yes a very serious defect indeed. The autopilot was U/S. It was replaced on the flight from memory, with a second pilot.

The CAA were not without serious questions to answer either WRT proceedures and maintenance, but then like current Labor policy of recent, the plebs have short memories and if you say the same thing over and over, it becomes fact.

Whyalla was a tragic joke played on the public by CASA.

framer

21st Aug 2011, 19:22

In the US a VFR pilot can fly day or night and there is no such rating.

i would be very interested to know how many hours under the hood they have to do in the USA v's in Australia.(I doubt the answer will help my argument but I genuinely believe in my position so thats ok.) Also, I think it is a bit different in Aus as the type of flying is diferent. In the USA there are less remote townships requiring a NVFR flight across country and out of sight of ground lighting due to the large population.
I would like to know the minimum hours under the hood required to gain a NVFR rating in Australia v's the minimum to gain an IFR rating as well.
Can anyone help me there? Any current instructors know the answer?
Cheers, Framer

OverFienD

21st Aug 2011, 23:40

It is not Red Tape to develop a position wherein an otherwise innocent / uneducated passenger can reasonably expect to survive a flight.

The two aren't mutually exclusive! Also, your inference is that the passenger of a private flight can not reasonably expect to survive a flight.

Would you support a public transport operator style accreditation system (as for private Bus/Rail/Tram operators) for HACC/Community funded volunteer cars, driven by the public? These services perform the same service as AF in regional areas, only in cars.

I was an AF pilot. At that time, there was no form of pilot checking, other than holding a copy of licence & medical on file. It was up to the pilot to declare whether they ere legally and operationally up to the task, when they either bid for a mission or were called by the coordinators.

Just as any pilot would for their own missions.

Is AF actually a private operation? One of the criteria of the definition (hire or reward) is that the pilot receives no benefit, but AF does provide fuel through Air BP which surely constitutes 'reward', doesn't it?

Cost sharing is allowed for a Private flight.

A 'private' operation, where there is a well-funded administrative base, which advertises its service heavily in mainstream media, where pilots and aircraft are 'tasked' on 'missions' with some form of time constraint (appointments etc) doesn't sound much like a 'private' operation.

AF act as a 'broker' to find empty seats on private flights that are going to/from a destination desired by the passenger. If the pilot decides to make that a trip on it's own, that is up to him/her. They do not 'task' missions any more than a private pilot who needs to attend a meeting does, or a pilot who decides to fly some friends for a weekend away.

The AF website declares it pilots to be "heroes'

They are!

This sad event will raise many questions, questions that probably should have been raised before the show got off the ground.

AF is a perfectly legal, and commendable endeavour. The inference that a PPL endorsed pilot should not be allowed to carry passengers is a poor one.

Aviation in Australia needs LESS regulation, not more, and seeking to have a sub-set of private flights operate under quasi-commercial regulation is a VERY slippery slope.

Apologies if my post sounds attacking, it is not meant to be (i'm in a hurry :))

mostlytossas

21st Aug 2011, 23:57

Up into the air, You misunderstand my point. I never said there was anything wrong with the PA31-350. My point was if you want to ban NVFR as some do then ban single pilot IFR also as that rating also has many fatalities. None of which I support by the way but merely point out you can't have it both ways. Frank is correct the Monarch accident did have a u/s auto pilot and to get around the regs at the time Monarch then carried a second pilot who if my memory is correct was later found to be very inexperianced and in an operation like that,little more than a passenger himself. The aircraft flew into a hill approaching Young airport in cloud carrying out a NDB approach.
As for Whyalla yes there was a bad batch of crankshafts that caused the engine failure of one engine, the other was found with holes in the top of the piston due it was reported to having an overlean mixture. Some pilot error also came into it at the inquest due to the above and also the route flown as the aircraft was reported to be "in trouble and sounding like rough running" over the town of Althorp before crossing the gulf. Why the pilot did not hug the coast towards Pirie before crossing at a narrow point was never known. However it was suggested at the inquest he may have been confused with the illusion of being closer to Whyalla than he was as at night over water the lights can appear much closer than they really are.

Ovation

22nd Aug 2011, 01:00

Media report:

The survivor has been woken from an induced coma.

Maybe she may have some recollection of the events leading to to this tragedy.

In reference to the Whyalla Airlines accident, the radar track showed a decrease in GS and heading deviation/s somewhere near Port Wakefield, which to me indicates the engine failure occurred well before crossing the water.

framer

22nd Aug 2011, 06:05

My point was if you want to ban NVFR as some do then ban single pilot IFR also as that rating also has many fatalities.

Personally I think that NVFR flights can easily turn into single pilot IFR flights for periods of time, until visual reference to lights or the horizon is regained. I also don't believe that the training should equip you with the same instrument experience in order to get you through those moments/minutes.
NVFR = :eek:

VH-XXX

22nd Aug 2011, 08:38

I was of the belief that in the Whyalla crash that indeed the first engine did cease before the over-water segment of the flight began. Pilot radioed base and was told to keep going and legally he was entitled to.

Avgas172

22nd Aug 2011, 09:01

One wonders if aviators like those brave pilots in the US mail service & others like Amelia Earhart & Charles Lindburgh are rolling about in their collective graves, thinking what a bunch of soft c*cks.
no further corospondence entered in to.
Have a lovely day,
A172

Howard Hughes

22nd Aug 2011, 11:34

You mean all those DEAD aviators?

bentleg

22nd Aug 2011, 18:03

As one who has done a few Angel Flights -

AngelFlight does not task anyone to do a flight. The pilot volunteers for it. Having said that there are quite a few AF flights on offer with late in the day departures that I am not willing to undertake because of the hour. I have mentioned this to AF and their response was they will pay for overnight if needed. Personally I'll stick to daylight flying thanks, even when IFR.

AngelFlight does not pressure any pilot to complete. Quite the reverse. I have been called by AF offering to cancel on a day when I was willing to go. Any pressure to get to the destination is self induced by the pilot. I have diverted for weather when close to the destination on two occasions and the pax has happily arranged to be picked up from there.

I agree withe the view expressed by others that if you kill AngelFlight, the only people who will suffer are the deserving pax.

All AF pilots are required to fly a public liability insured aircraft, and I believe AF has its own insurance as well.

The view that there should be higher standards when you carry AF pax compared to flying alone is crap. I value my neck as much (if not more) than anyone elses. I apply the same standard to ALL flights.

framer

22nd Aug 2011, 19:35

I agree withe the view expressed by others that if you kill AngelFlight, the only people who will suffer are the deserving pax.

So do I.

The view that there should be higher standards when you carry AF pax compared to flying alone is crap.
I agree that that is neccesary to keep it going. The NVFR rating shouldn't be available to commercial flights either. Ifr or VFR, no inbetween.

Avgas172

24th Aug 2011, 02:00

You mean all those DEAD aviators?
exactly & including your namesake HH, if it wasn't for them you would be still sailing & cycling.
(damn I said no corrospondence would be entered into) :ugh:

Al Fentanyl

24th Aug 2011, 12:11

OverFienD, a pity you were so rushed that you didn't take the time to read and understand.

In no particular order -

Cost sharing on a private flight requires all participants to contribute equally. This is not the case with AF. Pilots may use their own aircraft or hire an aircraft, which the passengers do not contribute to the cost of; but the pilots do receive a benefit in fuel - ie it costs less than it otherwise would to do the AF trip.

The Red Tape you refer to has as its intent, the safety of all people participating in aviation. It is, to a greater or lesser extent, necessary. It may be that the investigation shows more 'Red Tape' applied to this organisations activities will make it safer. Where you get the two inferences you refer to is beyond me.

HACC buses are driven by accredited people (at least they are where I come from - maybe your area is different). Volunteer organisations have both government and their own mandated standards for volunteers, such as Blue Cards as an example. AF possibly needs more or higher standards if they are transporting the general public rather than their personal family or friends.

Private pilots don't fly missions. Private operations don't involve heroes. Check the NTSB reviews of causes of EMS crashes in USA for the basis to this. A 'mission' orientation and the hero appellation are tangibly dangerous as contributing factors to a 'must do' mindset.

AF doesn't act as a seat finder on already planned flights, it asks pilots to undertake a flight for a specific purpose.

Having a quasi-commercial operation working under the regulations governing private operations is a VERY slippery slope.

Rossy

24th Aug 2011, 13:30

Framer, single engine NVFR is not allowed by commercial flights.

jas24zzk

24th Aug 2011, 13:56

Al,
great response.

Cost sharing on a pvt flight actually doesn't require that the costs are shared equally. It actually denotes that the pilot must contribute a MINIMUM of his share of the cost basis. So if Mobil or what ever money gouging fuel company pays for the fuel, the pilot will have always contributed a greater share of the flights cost.

If this does not happen to be the case, you will probably find buried in all the crap that comes out of government a single paragraph expempting AF pilots from total adherance. The beaurocrat that proposed this, probably got a pay rise as the gov knows this course is cheaper than providing the service they collect taxes to provide.

Private operations don't involve heroes

So BLOODY true!!! I was reading the crap last week calling Cadel Evans a Hero..........not to me!!! A hero to me is the man who fights for his country, or stands up to a mugging or rushes into a burning house and drags out the occupants. Cadel Evans is a Champion!. The people who fly AF tasks, are Good Samaritans. Correct terminology should be applied to what a person strives to achieve.

Having a quasi-commercial operation working under the regulations governing private operations is a VERY slippery slope.

REALLY!!! after all that has been said, you come up with this!!!
As someone else already pointed out, would you rather be flying in a CHARTER with a 200 hour cpl who is more interested in his hours/ego or a 500+ hour PPL who is striving on every flight to demonstrate his professionalism? Lets face it, the PPL at that level has no ambition other than to complete a safe flight. Take it from the boys that go on the BPPP's..........PPL's achieving higher standards than ATPL's on type...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Realistically,
unless we can force the government to either a)put doctors in places needed or b) pay for the transportation of these patients, we should all get behind the people who fly AF tasks and support them. If we don't, a ****load of nice people/kids are going to find medical help inaccessible, or as someone else put it, dangerously accessible (long road trips)

If we run a thread denigrating AF's efforts then the self effacing 'crats will help CASA shut it down. The only positive in that I see is a fat bonus for the 'crat that signs it off as a job well done.

Cheers
Jas

OverFienD

24th Aug 2011, 14:01

Cost sharing on a private flight requires all participants to contribute equally

Fair enough. But besides the argument, CASA clearly don't have a difficulty with it.

The Red Tape you refer to has as its intent, the safety of all people participating in aviation. It is, to a greater or lesser extent, necessary.

I believe the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is apt!

Where you get the two inferences you refer to is beyond me.

From here:

passenger can reasonably expect to survive a flight.

If your meaning is other than it reads on this point, I.e. That an AF passenger on a pvt flight, cannot currently expect to survive a flight, then the error is mine !

HACC buses are driven by accredited people

Nope. Just (drivers) licensed people. Not all these services are buses. Same as meals on wheels. I'm sure most AF pilots would be willing to undergo a police check, to qualify for volunteer status, possibly their ASIC would do.

Not really sure what your definition argument regarding missions is about. The point remains that pilots (even lowly vfr ppls) are aware that they are sometimes under pressure from various sources to complete a flight (mission). Pilots are also acutely aware that the responsibility for the safety of that flight falls on them (notwithstanding the fact that it is also their own safety).

Private operations don't involve heroes, eh? Possibly the recipients of AF's may disagree. Didn't the inhabitants of some of the earthquake and hurricane affected areas in the northern hemisphere receive aid and mercy flights from private ops? If so, that also seems pretty heroic. IMO.

The seat brokering argument is just that...

Yes, clearly every private pilot who flies for his own business needs (who are as 'quasi-commercial' as AF) as well as AF are sliding down the slippery non-regulated pole of dooooooooom! :P

jas24zzk

24th Aug 2011, 14:04

Framer, single engine NVFR is not allowed by commercial flights.

Framer...dude!!! stick your head in a rule book!!!

Charter category.

Day VFR flight. PIC must hold an NFVR and aircraft legal for NVFR

Night VFR. PIC must hold CIR, and Aircraft duly maintained.

Jas

Howard Hughes

24th Aug 2011, 22:53

What book are you reading from? I would suggest it is a little more complicated than that!

Can you point me to a reference where it says single engine NVFR commercial operations (passenger) are legal, I must be missing something.

outnabout

24th Aug 2011, 23:04

Reading some of the comments on this thread, I get the feeling that CAO 40.2 is going to come as a complete surprise for some....

(This refers to NVFR - valid for private & aerial works only in SE aircraft)

Al Fentanyl

24th Aug 2011, 23:48

OverFienD, you really have a problem reading & comprehending.

To repeat (again) the object of aviation regulation is safety. Clear enough? Yes, the error is yours.

A 200hr CPL in a charter show works within a framework of regulation and standards, so that the operation is as safe as can be reasonably acheived. There are CASA approved checks and balances designed to optimise safety for the travelling public. The same does not apply to this quasi-private/ commercial show where you may be putting unsuspecting passengers with pilots and aircraft that do not meet the same standards or have the same checks and balances as a charter operation. Do the passengers know this?

As previously explained, airline transport is the safest option. In GA, EMS is the safest, followed by charter, with private ops well behind.

Again as previously explained, where I come from HACC and other volunteers are accredited.

And yet again as previously explained, in Qld the Government DOES pay for these patients who do not qualify for RFDS, to be transported by airline (the PTS scheme).

Perhaps the passion and enthusiam of those supporting AF could be redirected into pushing their government into appropriately funding the health system to do the same.

Rossy

25th Aug 2011, 01:36

outnabout, you are correct. Should have read single engine NVFR charter flights are not allowed.

Howard Hughes

25th Aug 2011, 03:39

Yes, clearly every private pilot who flies for his own business needs (who are as 'quasi-commercial' as AF) as well as AF are sliding down the slippery non-regulated pole of dooooooooom!
When I said Angel Flight were a quasi-commercial opertion, what I meant was they are essentially offering free charters. A businessman flying himself is quite clearly a private operation and totally different to the AF situation!

Old Akro

25th Aug 2011, 05:58

HH

I don't think you could be more wrong. A private flight with a supplier / customer or employee along as a passenger is far closer to a commercial operation than AF. And the pax potentially are less well informed. Angel Flight is pretty much a match making service. The passengers are given briefings beforehand by Angel Flight and they get some details on the pilot and aircraft beforehand, so they have some degree of an informed decision. The pilot who grabs an employee and says "c'mon mate we'll just fly here" has much less power in the equation.

But, you've also got to remember that the same goes for driving someone in a car. We don't get hung up about needing operation manuals to run someone down the road in a vehicle with unregulated servicing and a driver who has had no licence review since he / she was a spotty 18 year old.

How many different levels of safety regulation do we need? Why should this discussion be any different than if the pilots wife and daughter were on board?

This thread has largely devolved into a NVMC bashing discussion. Without getting into the merits of that debate, lets remember that there is no indication that this was a NVMC accident. It may be VFR to IMC, it may be pilot incapacitation, or it might have been an attack by aliens. One of our questions should be why it takes the ATSB a year to figure out which of these it is. I want to understand this and look for lessons way before then.

framer

25th Aug 2011, 06:20

Rossy

Framer, single engine NVFR is not allowed by commercial flights.

I have no argument with that, I actually didn't mention single engine ops, just single pilot ifr in response to someones suggestion that it could also be banned.

Jas24
Framer...dude!!! stick your head in a rule book!!!

Charter category.

Day VFR flight. PIC must hold an NFVR and aircraft legal for NVFR

Night VFR. PIC must hold CIR, and Aircraft duly maintained.

Jas
heh heh good call , you're probably right, I look in the law books all the time but not the NVFR section. That said, it makes no difference to my argument at all.
My position is that the NVFR rating doesn't prepare the pilot for the conditions they will encounter. Simple. Do you think it does?
It should be scrapped or the 'time under the hood' required should be increased to achieve the same competancy levels that are achieved with an IFR rating. Don't worry about the nav so much (after all it is VFR) but equip the pilot with the skills to be able to deal with all the nasty illusions that come with flying in IMC ....because the reality is....sometimes they'l need that skill.
Thats all I'm saying.
Framer

Rossy

25th Aug 2011, 09:44

Hey framer, wasn't having a crack at you, just wasn't sure you knew. And it should have said Charter, not commercial flight.

Cheers!

Howard Hughes

25th Aug 2011, 10:33

I don't think you could be more wrong. A private flight with a supplier / customer or employee along as a passenger is far closer to a commercial operation than AFHow do you arrive at that conclusion? AF schedules aircraft with flight crew, your local fly in vet does not!
The passengers are given briefings beforehand by Angel Flight and they get some details on the pilot and aircraft beforehand, so they have some degree of an informed decision. You can give all the briefings you like, people will still not understand the subtle difference! Clearly people on here don't and they are from within the industry.

From where I sit there seems to be a large discrepancy in the type of equipment, pilot qualifications and operating procedures. Why set the bar so low? I don't think raising the minimums would have any effect on their ability to deliver the service.

Why not strive for a higher level of service delivery rather than accept the minimum? Just because it is a private operation why not operate to a higher standard? Where I work all our flights are technically 'air work', but maintenance, aircraft equipment and training are operated to an RPT equivilent standard.

Old Akro

25th Aug 2011, 14:26

HH

Does the "low bar" that you complain about apply to the ABC chopper? Or the 206 at Lake Eyre. Or the 210 at Kunnunurra? At the moment there is no evidence that the Cherokee 180 that crashed near Nhill was any less well maintained, or the pilot any less diligent. Indeed, while its unlikely, the aeroplane might even be in the charter category for all we know. Instead, there is just a lot of finger pointing because the pilot was a private pilot and not possessing the elevated status of CPL or ATPL.

And why should a small not-for-profit be setting itself up as knowing better than CASA? Why do you think my family's life is worth less than someone I meet through Angel Flight? If you think the PPL standards are too low, then lets argue that case. If you think Airwork maintenance standards are too low, then lets argue that case. And if there is a good argument for either, then let's take it to CASA.

I presume you have never sen the information pack that goers to Angel Flight passengers? Or have awareness of the screening system to confirm that the passengers are fit to fly? Or potentially even the emails and flight briefing sheets that go to passengers, pilots & ground crew? Have you experienced how Angel Flight deals with a Pilot cancelling a trip (which is excellent by the way)?

I stand by my argument that an angel Flight passenger is in a better position to make a judgement about whether or not to fly with me that one of my clients or employees who decides to fly with me on a business trip. If for no other reason than the balance of power is more even. Angel Flight is an introduction service, not a scheduled service, not a charter. I cancelled an Angel Flight today because I'm getting the flu. If it was a private / business flight I might still do it, I'm not yet unfit to fly. But there is a whole different imperative. A friend flew to a regional town to pick up a passenger, got there but didn't like the weather he flew through and so cancelled the Angel Flight with about 30 min notice. That flexibility doesn't exist with charter and rightly or wrongly is less likely to exist on private / business flights.

Jamair

25th Aug 2011, 20:58

Akro, I think you have some valid points, as do HH and Al and some other posters who have remained objective. Therein lay the crux of the issue being debated - objectivity.

While you and someone like HH who works in this role all day can make a smart and objective go/ no-go decision , does the same apply to all the AF pilots across the the wide range of experience and training that their website demonstrates? The rate of fatal crashes in PVT ops vs CHTR and RPT seems to indicate not.

Once the emotion is taken out an objective review may find that perhaps tighter operational management, regulatory oversight and higher minimum standards would make for a safer operation. Perhaps not.

Old Akro

26th Aug 2011, 01:09

Jamair

I can't disagree with you. My only point would be that I think I'd go with the judgement of a 66 YO 800 hour PPL who owns an aeroplane before most of the mass produced 21YO training factory CPL's who are the main fodder for charter ops.

Furthermore, I reckon my light twin is better equipped and better maintained than any of the (charter ops) twins I used to hire.

HH has a valid point of view, I just think he's overlooking the huge overlap between private & commercial ops. I'll concede that the best commercial ops are probably better than the best private ops. But I'm not sure that the worst commercial ops are any better than the worst private ops.

framer

26th Aug 2011, 04:57

While you and someone like HH who works in this role all day can make a smart and objective go/ no-go decision , does the same apply to all the AF pilots across the the wide range of experience and training that their website demonstrates?

My only point would be that I think I'd go with the judgement of a 66 YO 800 hour PPL who owns an aeroplane before most of the mass produced 21YO training factory CPL's who are the main fodder for charter ops.

The rate of fatal crashes in PVT ops vs CHTR and RPT seems to indicate not.

My opinion is that it will vary from pilot to pilot but on the whole, there will be more ppl's that get out of their depth when it comes to these decisions. Experience is the difference.
Some of the ppl's may have had decades of experience making tough decisions where the consequences were tangible and serious. In adition, they may have spent a lot of their spare time reading aviation incident reports which adds to their understanding of how certain things play out. Alternatively, they may have very little experience in decision making followed by 'wearing the consequences,' and never read anything aviation related after their licence obligations were fulfilled. It really is a mixed bag.The worst offenders in my opinion being the chaps who buy an aircraft because it satisfies their ego, not because they are passionate about aviation.
With the commercial pilots, they generally have constant exposure to the environment. They're immersed in it in most cases. They can spend 40-60 hours a week living breathing reading socialising flying. I think that plays in their favour. It's sort of like an 'industry currency'.
I know I'l get responses detailing how incredibly dedicated and knowledgable some ppls are. I know that, especially if they are on this site. I'm not disputing that, just saying that the consistancy in decision making skills is not as great in that group, simply because it doesn't have to be and we're human, which brings me back to the NVFR rating, all that does is make the decision harder for them.Make it easy, if it's gunna get dark, stay on the ground or get an ifr rating.

VH-XXX

26th Aug 2011, 05:42

My opinion is that it will vary from pilot to pilot but on the whole, there will be more ppl's that get out of their depth when it comes to these decisions. Experience is the difference.

Oh dear, where do people come up with this.

Have you read the Angel Flight pilot profiles? There are a lot of ex CPL's etc on there that are now just lowly PPL's as people are describing. A PPL doesn't mean you have a tendency to easily go out of your depth and make poor decisions. I know many a PPL that I'd rather fly with than a snotty nosed 200 hour pilot that doesn't know ****.

Would a 20 year old 200 hour CPL have better judgement than a 700 hour 50 year old?

mostlytossas

26th Aug 2011, 06:03

Fair dinkum Framer. I haven't read so much nonscense in a long time. Experiance cannot be bought or can it be gained by a mere qualification or licence grade. Put it in perpective with surface transport. According to you a taxi driver would be a better driver than a private driver because it is his job and is "immersed in it" yeah right,what planet do you live on. Taxi cabs are better maintained too no doubt because they are regulated by the PTB, sure!!!
As for reading aviation books,well I have a family member that fly's for a high capacity airline and let me tell you the last thing he wants to do in his own time is read or do anything aviation related.

Howard Hughes

26th Aug 2011, 12:49

Does the "low bar" that you complain about apply to the ABC chopper? Or the 206 at Lake Eyre. Or the 210 at Kunnunurra? At the moment there is no evidence that the Cherokee 180 that crashed near Nhill was any less well maintained, or the pilot any less diligent. Indeed, while its unlikely, the aeroplane might even be in the charter category for all we know. Instead, there is just a lot of finger pointing because the pilot was a private pilot and not possessing the elevated status of CPL or ATPL.

Old Akro, could you please point out where I have made a direct reference to either the pilot, or aircraft concerned in this incident? My only reference was to say that following this incident, now may be a very good time to review the way Angel Flight operates.
And why should a small not-for-profit be setting itself up as knowing better than CASA? Why do you think my family's life is worth less than someone I meet through Angel Flight? If you think the PPL standards are too low, then lets argue that case. If you think Airwork maintenance standards are too low, then lets argue that case. And if there is a good argument for either, then let's take it to CASA.
Once again you seem to have missed my point, or perhaps I have not delivered it succinctly enough. I have not said that the standards are too low, nor had a go at private pilots, more that all pilots (and in particular organisations) should be striving for a higher standard than the 'bare minimum'. There is no need to change the minimums, nor dictate to CASA, simply say here is the minimum, I want to aim for a higher level/standard and set appropiate goals. I would hope that is what most are doing anyway!
I presume you have never sen the information pack that goers to Angel Flight passengers? Or have awareness of the screening system to confirm that the passengers are fit to fly? Or potentially even the emails and flight briefing sheets that go to passengers, pilots & ground crew? Have you experienced how Angel Flight deals with a Pilot cancelling a trip (which is excellent by the way)?
You got me, I haven't! Nor do I think I need to in order to be able to understand the way non fliers view and understand aviation, I have dealt with enough non-fliers to be able realise that it is almost impossible for them to understand the subtle differences involved, no matter how much information they are given.

For what it's worth my opinion with regard to experience; I think recent and relevant experience is as important as total time.

Cheers, HH.

jas24zzk

26th Aug 2011, 14:36

VH-XXX makes an interesting point of thought. Certainly one many of us had not considered, and upon reflection, most of the AF pilots I know fall into this very category.

Retired Airline Pilots. Thousands of hours experience. Full licence=ATPL. Medical...class 2. rendering them to PPL level.

Are these the same PPL guys we are talking about? Are we putting them all in the same bag?

The reality is that maybe 1% of AF pilots do it for the hour building, the remainder do it for the love of flying.
I'm not even going to hazard the percentages here, but you can bet your arse that all these guys do it as a means of maintaining their skills.

If you don't fly, your skills fall, we all know that. whether it be an 800 pure ppl, or a 20k hour jet jock.

--------------------------------
framer,
seriously dude, your anti NVFR thoughts do not belong in this thread. The relevancy for this accident have already been established. If you wish to bash us with NVFR tickets, start a new thread for the subject.

Cheers
Jas

Kharon

26th Aug 2011, 14:37

It's not Lads, Lasses, ATPL/ CPL/ PPL NVMC, IFR, SE, ME or, any of the above boxes that concern me; only the harsh realities of life.

If I ruled the world (music up please, musical interlude follows) every pilot could do as best pleased them - but I don't.

CF - "Uhmm , Sorry Missus - we killed your kid".

Mum - (No worries - insurance will pay the expenses and compo).

QBE - Sorry Madam - no compo, illegal flight - we suggest you sue the operators insurance company.

WHAT - no compo, CASA should not let this happen.

The rest, as they say - is history.

Run over a Budgie - mandatory ATSB report.

Oh boy the Coroners court mess. Can't wait. $$$$$$$$$$.

Alah kerrin - ho ho.

Selah .:D

jas24zzk

26th Aug 2011, 14:38

Selah,
nice to see your post is as constructive as usual. about time you got off the yippee flowers mate.

Kharon

26th Aug 2011, 15:23

Yawwwn !!!. :D

October the 7th is now one day closer. :=

See you then - all you Big shots, experts, bully's and the rest of the people who do not have a cushion. (Think of Bilbo or, [ if that defeats thee] Heath Ledger).

Remember, remember the 7th of October - not quite as neat as the fifth of November - but I am sure all the intellectual giants attending will forgive a poor, uneducated country boy (LMFSO) a small flight of fancy.

Come on, ozzie come on. You know the song.

‘ala khair.

dis bala khayer, nitkalem sawa bad

Selah. Indeed. :D

framer

27th Aug 2011, 04:49

I didn't mean to wind you guys up, thats not my M.O.
I will stop banging on about the NVFR rating because it is derailing the thread which was not my intention.Apologies there.

Have you read the Angel Flight pilot profiles?
I have. Very impressed (no sarcasim).
I honestly admire the AF organisation and haven't said one word against it or their pilots. My beef is with the rating and this wan't the place to pursue it.

I do disagree with some of the statements here regarding decision making though.
Would a 20 year old 200 hour CPL have better judgement than a 700 hour 50 year old?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. (like I said) It depends on many things, did the 50 year old log those 700hrs over a 20 year period? If so I hold currency well above 35 hours a year, so it depends on the situation.
Anyway, I was talking big picture and thousands of licence holders and I probably didn't make that clear, we ended up comparing two imaginary pilots, it's futile. If in doubt just look at the stats for crashes. The stats don't play out the way they do because ppls fly faster more complex aircraft in worse weather, they play out the way they do because on average they have less experience to draw options from when making decisions.
Or is there another reason that I have missed?
Remember...this isn't an attack on ppl's, my motive here is to remove the option to fly in the dark with inadequate training.
framer,
seriously dude, your anti NVFR thoughts do not belong in this thread.
Fair call.
I'l start another thread soon to avoid hijacking this one, feel free to pm me if you want to continue the converstaion.
Have a good one,
Framer

Old Akro

27th Aug 2011, 04:59

Karom

What are you on? Your post is unintelligible babble trying to make scaremongering accusations without basis.

And be careful about weilding PLO anniversary dates like threats.

Aussie Bob

27th Aug 2011, 10:53

I am with Karom.

And it is time you opinionated ninnies stopped postulating about what was simply an unfortunate accident. Let it go, move on.

cficare

27th Aug 2011, 10:57

the major prob is 'tasking' a pilot to perform a mission.....puts heaps of pressure on the pilot..

YPJT

27th Aug 2011, 11:05

the major prob is 'tasking' a pilot to perform a mission.....puts heaps of pressure on the pilot..Absolute garbage. I have undertaken many AFs (never really got a hard on referring to them as missions). On occasions after careful consideration of wx forecasts have gone back to AF ops and said it's a no go. No pressure whatsoever.

cficare

27th Aug 2011, 11:19

that proves it works sometimes ...your still alive.

jas24zzk

27th Aug 2011, 12:56

I didn't mean to wind you guys up, thats not my M.O.
I will stop banging on about the NVFR rating because it is derailing the thread which was not my intention.Apologies there.

Framer,
if you feel so passionate about it, you should start a new thread on subject....i beleive i suggested that prior.

Jas

Diatryma

29th Aug 2011, 02:24

Angel Flight mum loses fight for life Julie-Anne and Jacinda Twigg (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/angel-flight-mum-loses-fight-for-life-20110829-1jhd5.html)

Tragic,

Di :uhoh:

YPJT

29th Aug 2011, 03:21

Di,
yes mate. Very tragic indeed.

Would be nice if all of us in this industry reflected on the sadness of the whole thing instead of taking turns on the high ground trying to pull AF to shreds. At least let ATSB do its job before the expert commentary.

OverFienD

31st Aug 2011, 11:48

Firstly, condolences to the family of the mother, who have already had so much sadness.

Al

It seems clear to me that we are destined to disagree, but insulting me does not make your argument any more correct.

If, as you say, the error is mine, could you please just clarify what

It is not Red Tape to develop a position wherein an otherwise innocent / uneducated passenger can reasonably expect to survive a flight.

Means? Specifically which passengers CANNOT reasonably expect to survive a flight, that a position needs tobe developed for?

Otherwise, I think most of the arguments either way have been made in various forms by others.

SW3

3rd Sep 2011, 10:46

Firstly, what a tragedy this accident is. An accident affects families and everyone of us as pilots.

The idea of AF is a fantastic one, no one can criticise the merits of it. However there are some issues at hand which must be addressed, undoubtedly the ATSB will make sure of this.

There is a reason behind the hierarchy of licences (PPL, CPL & ATPL) and a reason why there are Instrument Ratings and NVFR Ratings. The NVFR on a PPL is a handy rating for your own personal use under a private operation for your own personal transport. However transporting others around, especially in a single well that's a whole different story. A PPL holder conducting a NVFR flight in a twin with a Command Instrument Rating would be fair in my book.

I think we should be looking at the type of flying AF pilots are allowed to conduct, not whether it should be allowed or who is better out of a PPL or a CPL! Sure if the pilot has the qualifications and equipment, go for it (IE Night = Multi Engine, Bad Weather = IR). Maybe limit the type of sorties allowed to be flown based on experience, qualifications and aircraft. PPL and hold only a NVFR with a single then limit to Day VFR. Ex airline pilot still holding a CIR with a PPL and a twin, night IFR fill your boots.

Higher Licences and ratings means more training and a safer operation. That is why to fly commercially you need this training, because CASA requires it for safety. Then the experience is built onto that training. No aviation operator hands the keys to the biggest aircraft in the fleet on a socked in day to the least qualified pilot on the books. Horses for courses, keep in the depth you're used to and this system should work fantastically. Let's learn from this tragedy as that is what our rules and regs are built on, someone else's misfortune.

FGD135

3rd Sep 2011, 11:33

SW3,

You are missing the whole point of AF. To give you a clue, in one word:

Cost.

Edited to add: To clarify, "cost" is not what AF are about, but "cost" is a significant aspect of the reason for the existance of AF.

Al Fentanyl

3rd Sep 2011, 12:12

FGD135 maybe you have missed the point: "If you think training / maintenance / equipment / pilot qualification is expensive, try having a crash"

SW3

3rd Sep 2011, 13:05

FGD135 I think you have missed the points I raise completely!
Safety is my point and 100% agree with Al, it is cheaper than an accident.
AF is a fantastic organisation as I've said and its merits are well and truly in everyone's best interests. I wholeheartedly support their mission. However to keep a safe operation there needs to be the required qualifications and training to complete the task at hand. Blue sky day, VFR go for it. Dark stormy night, NVFR won't cut it. That's why the COST of an ATPL isn't the same as the COST of a Wheety's packet. Why the cost of a single can't be substituted for the cost of a twin's job.

mostlytossas

4th Sep 2011, 02:20

SW3, I don't think anyone disagrees with your examples,though NVFR for the personal transport of the pilot only is over the top for a private operation. If a passenger/s is happy to travel with the pilot on a private flight so be it. No different to jumping on the back of a motorbike,car, speedboat etc. Freedom of choice nothing more or less.
What you described about "stormy night IFR only" is how it is right now. Just follow the rules. The VMC criterior is higher for NVFR than day VFR and has been for decades. This is the possible reason for the crash, continued flight into non VMC conditions. I say possible as the ATSB has not reported on a cause yet and in fact it may have occured before last light and had nothing to do with it.
The last thing Australia needs is more restrictive regulation that will do nothing to prevent poor judgment anyway. All aircraft types crash sometimes even modern airliners into the ocean. The answer is education at all levels not more rules.

FGD135

4th Sep 2011, 02:48

Safety is my point and 100% agree with Al, it is cheaper than an accident.

Yes, yes, we all know that. It is not necessary to trot out that so often repeated line "if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident".

We know it, agree with it, and have heard it a million times.

But that wasn't the COST I was referring to, and your posts have now confirmed that you are indeed missing the whole point of AF.

If it became a requirement for the pilot to have a higher category of licence, or the aircraft to have more engines or equipment, then that would make each flight much more costly, and that extra cost would result in:

NO MORE ANGEL FLIGHTS.

SW3

4th Sep 2011, 03:51

Still missing my point. Read my post again is all I'll say. There's a reason why CASA requires certain aircraft types for different operations (IE Multi at night) when commercially carrying pax and this is for safety. So what I'm saying is that is why a single engine NVFR flight for AF is completely different to a purely private operation and in such an instance for a flight of this time and conditions an IR should be held. I never said NVFR is for sole pilot transport, I said private use.

The cost of conducting a safer operation or regrettably not going at that particular time is far better than an accident. As you may read again, I'm all for AF, given the right task to the right pilot in the right aeroplane. I'd be the last to want more regulation and I've never mentioned more regs, just keeping in the current regs up to ones abilities and qualifications.

Roger Standby

5th Sep 2011, 15:14

I haven't gone back through the whole thread, but I think this point is different to what you've all been discussing. The aircraft in this case went down in my airspace. I wasn't working at the time. One of the guys I work with knew some of the people involved. He has been rocked by the event. It's shaken a few others of us up at well.

What we are trying to grapple with is anything simple that could have made events better. Something that could have got services to the accident quicker. The best we've been able to think of is the use of VFR "flight following". It may not have had any effect in this case, and the service is definitely workload permitting. We can't work out why more VFR's don't use the opportunity. Having said that, if you do want to use it, do us a favour and put a plan in.

Cheers,

R.S.

SW3

5th Sep 2011, 22:15

Fantastic point and it's worthy to mention ATC bends over backwards to help in a time of need. Great work

Old Akro

5th Sep 2011, 23:42

SW3

For the nth time. There is no indication that this was a NVMC related incident. Do I need to repeat this slowly? Because it was reported after last light it has been assumed by many that it occurred after last light. But either look for my earlier posts or do the homework yourself and look up last light at Horsham or Nhill. The Essendon departure time was publicised as wheels off at 4pm. Make a flight plan for an Archer on your favorite flight planning programme and look at the flight time. The wind observations are on the BOM site too. Based on these, the flight should have landed with a comfortable margin before last light. If you look at the source media reports the accident time occurred anywhere between 5.45 and 6.15. The reported times in the media are erratic. At this stage probably on the ATSB knows the real time. But either way there is no prima facie evidence that this was a NVMC accident. It may be VFR to IFR, it may be a systems failure, it may be pilot incapacitiation, it may be a number of things, but logical analysis does NOT point to NVMC.

The NVMC debate is a good one. But for crying out loud stop labeling this accident as NVMC related and stop criticising Angel Flight on the basis having allowed this flight as a NVMC operation.

mostlytossas

6th Sep 2011, 00:37

Roger S, I'll tell you why pilots don't use flight following or bother to put in a flight plan half the time. Because ASA discouraged it not so long ago that's why. Wasn't so long ago we were all told to "not clog up the system with VFR plans" and "just call up at the boundry to CTA for clearance" along with the introduction of flight notes to be held by friends and family.
Now that ASA has new equiptment that won't take manual last minute entries (so I'm told) flight plans are back in vogue.
Problem with ASA and CASA for that matter is they change their minds more times than the wind changes. Little wonder VFR operators throw up their hands in dismay and go it alone. I don't blame you coalface workers as I know you mostly agree with the above and try your damness to make it all work but your management is hopeless and wouldn't hold a job on any civvy street. Trying to get them to come up with a workable, reliable system and actually stick with it for more than 5 minutes is like trying to herd cats.:ugh:

Harry Cooper

6th Sep 2011, 04:46

For the nth time. There is no indication that this was a NVMC related incident. Do I need to repeat this slowly? Because it was reported after last light it has been assumed by many that it occurred after last light. But either look for my earlier posts or do the homework yourself and look up last light at Horsham or Nhill.

Looking at the ATSB preliminary investigation they have the accident at 1850 EST. With last light at around 1825 EST, I'd say it is a NVMC accident.

Old Akro

6th Sep 2011, 05:34

Harry

The ATSB has not yet released any form of report. I think the time they currently list is the time at which they were notified - not the accident time. I'll think you'll find that the news reports quote witnesses which point to the accident occurring in the window of 1745 - 1815, which pretty much fits a 1600 departure time from YMEN, tracking KIM - YBDG - YNHL at PA28-180 speeds with probably 2-3 kts headwind. If a Cherokee 180 took 2 hours 50 to get to Horsham, there is a whole other issue at play.

TriMedGroup

6th Sep 2011, 05:49

What is the endurance of a Cherokee 180 with 3 POB and bags?

With a departure time of 1600 and an estimated accident time of 1850 is there a chance of fuel exhaustion?

Also from what ive read the aircraft was not operating on a SARTIME, surely this should be a minimum requirement for Angel Flights?

I also notice that the pilot had flown 80 hours in the previous 7 or so months, and the remainder of his 720 hours command experience was spread out over 43 years - is there any type of recurrent checking or record keeping of recent experience with Angel Flight, or is a mickey mouse AFR every couple of years plus 1 hour at night 12 months ago and 3 T/O and landings 90 days ago all that is needed to be able to be tasked for a mission at night?

Old Akro

6th Sep 2011, 07:23

Lets let this thread die. Its going around and around and doesn't need a new round of beating up of Angel Flight and / or the pilot based on imagined conditions.

My conclusion is that the accident occurred between 1745 and 1815 or approx 10 - 40 min before last light. It may have been in deteriorating light and it may have been in poor weather, but prima facie there is no indication that it was NVMC related. This is consistent with media reports and the reported departure time, flight route and aircraft speed.

The actual time of the accident (I imagine) will be the subject of significant research by the ATSB. Its quite likely that at low altitude in that location the txp returns were not reliable. In fact, at low level (ie 1500 ft AGL) in that area I wouldn't be fully confident of reliable VHF comms to ML centre. The accident time is likely to be based on a flight projection based on earlier txp returns supplemented with eye witness reports. I'm sure that the ATSB will do a good job of this in the report, however, all this data must come from sources outside the ATSB (ie ASA) and will take some time to collect and analyse. As a placeholder I'm equally sure that they are currently showing the time at which they were notified of the accident which by my estimation is 30 - 60 minutes after the actual accident time. Once again, this time lapse would be consistent with a VFR flight without flight following.

There is nothing to suggest that the pilot was any less than a well qualified, experienced, diligent, current pilot in a well cared for, well maintained aircraft. He had flown from Yarrawonga to Essendon that day. This is a tragic accident. Lets give a fellow pilot a break and not drag up baseless speculation that impinges on the character of someone unable to defend themselves.

There will be lessons to be learned and I for one will be looking out for the ATSB report. Given that Angel Flight tightened its procedures a year or so ago proactively after the US incident, I'm confident that they will also be looking for improvement actions. But they currently have higher requirements than CASA requires. So any criticisms raised about Angel Flight are even more valid to be asked about guys taking mates for joyflights, or flying for business under cost sharing arrangements or the whole spectrum of private flying. None of this finger pointing has gone on with the Sydney ditching, ABC chopper, Lake Eyre 206 or any of the other recent spate of accidents yet the same questions can be asked of pretty much all the recent accidents.

There are good points in this thread about NVMC ratings, but it applies to all flying not this accident. There is also a very good point about why flight following is not used more commonly and why our system is not sufficiently resourced so that it can be encouraged. I think there is also an debate that could occur about the degradation of weather forecasts for cat D locations like Nhill and the whole abandonment of flightwatch. But these are separate and peripheral to this accident and could each be the subject of separate threads.

SW3

6th Sep 2011, 12:32

Old Akro, settle! NVFR is not my only point and I'm not only centering on this tragedy. My whole point is keep within your depth and qualifications. A flight leaving into the late afternoon or early evening in possible marginal weather? Best in an IFR twin. And please accept I'm not attacking AF, however the risks of SE at night etc must be considered. My concerns stem from experience, not from wanting to criticize a fantastic organisation. End of story. I understand where you're coming from but CASA has regs in place for the same flight conducted commercially which essentially has just as much at stake and is not dissimilar from an AF task only money doesn't change hands.

Avgas172

6th Sep 2011, 21:08

Lets let this thread die. Its going around and around and doesn't need a new round of beating up of Angel Flight and / or the pilot based on imagined conditions

Bravo, three cheers .... what that man said, FFS let it go. :ugh:

UnderneathTheRadar

20th Sep 2011, 01:19

Landed in Bendigo, didn't depart until 17.11, time of impact approx 18.20. Let the NVFR debate restart....

I don't understand what the report is trying to say about the TAFs. On one hand it indicates that the TAFs were saying an improvement was on but at the same time indicating that there had been an INTER in place (but I can't tell if it had been removed). Not clear but pointing to a possible false hope being given that getting in would have been ok.

UTR.

VH-XXX

20th Sep 2011, 01:51

The weather in the area around the accident was reported by other pilots not to have been suitable for VFR flight in the late afternoon.

Based on the above comment, there is no need to re-open the NVFR debate if it wasn't even suitable for VFR.

Old Akro

20th Sep 2011, 02:54

I think its unclear. One would assume he landed at Bendigo because the weather didn't look good. At Bendigo the pilot checked the weather on NAIPS and the passenger rang someone at Nhill. One would assume that the combined information of passenger & pilot led them to decide to continue. They spent about 20 minutes on the ground at Bendigo at a time when there were still people around, so I'm willing to give the pilot the benefit and assume he made a good fist of trying to get a better handle on the weather ahead. I landed (as a passenger) at Tullamarine in a Virgin Blue aircraft at pretty much the accident time and I thought the Melbourne basin looked CAVOK or very close to it. This is a fair way from Horsham, but it does serve to question the assumption that there was universally poor weather.

I'm sure this will re-ignite the NVFR debate, but the accident occurred basically at last light and not some time after last light due to disorientation. So, I still think its probably a VMC to non-VMC thing.

Given that the pilot has landed at Bendigo (presumably) to seek better weather information, my question is does our system provide adequate information on which to base a decision to fly a hour's flight? In my experience, the TAF's for Horsham / Nhill are very poor - especially toward the end of its validity. There is a (phone only) AWIS, but without cloud data. In fact there are none with cloud data in that whole segment of Victoria. Would the outcome have been better with the old flightwatch? Would the outcome be different if flight following was easier to access? Would the outcome be different if he took the more direct route (largely following the highway) via Ballarat which would have required an airways clearance. But at this time of the afternoon it is unlikely that this would have been granted.

The pilot is likely to be blamed here for poor decision making. But given that he landed and sought additional weather information, I think it is appropriate to review whether our system was able to provide him with adequate information. The Bendigo landing is not consistent with a reckless or gung-ho pilot.

Avgas172

20th Sep 2011, 09:26

Investigation: AO-2011-100 - Collision with terrain - Piper PA-28-180 aircraft, VH-POJ, 40 km north of Horsham, Vic, 15 August 2011 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-100.aspx)

Jabawocky

20th Sep 2011, 10:16

Motor racing and aviation have some things in common. I have a little knowledge of both.

If you only think you can..........YOU CAN"T.

The stopping in Bendigo is a telling tale, whether it be VFR into IMC or just Night VMC. My guess is a blend of both

havick

20th Sep 2011, 10:21

without eod graphs in front of me or relevant apps, does anyone know what time (local) that last light was in the vicinity of Warracknabeal on that particular day?

'A loud bang was heard at approximately 1820'

Old Akro

21st Sep 2011, 00:40

Published last light was 6:23pm. Accident was at 6:20pm. The pilot was NVMC rated and the flight was replanned at Bendigo to land at Nhill shortly after last light. This was not a NVFR accident.

It was probably a VFR no non VMC accident.

My question is; given that the pilot stopped at Bendigo, made phonecalls and sought updated weather - for a flight of less than an hour over flat terrain - has our system delivered the level of flight service that it should? I don't think that this is a question that will get a look-in on the ATSB report, but I think its a question worth asking.

And for Jabawocky, having come freshly from being Clerk of Course at a race meeting this weekend. Racing provides track inspections and reports, safety cars, flag marshalls and other support. We intervened 3 times to clean oil or other debris from the track and sent an ambulance out once as a precaution. I also spoke to 2 drivers to counsel them on poor judgements they made. There are many people whose job it is to advise drivers of changed conditions and generally watch over them.

Jabawocky

21st Sep 2011, 04:17

And for Jabawocky, having come freshly from being Clerk of Course at a race meeting this weekend. Racing provides track inspections and reports, safety cars, flag marshalls and other support. We intervened 3 times to clean oil or other debris from the track and sent an ambulance out once as a precaution. I also spoke to 2 drivers to counsel them on poor judgements they made. There are many people whose job it is to advise drivers of changed conditions and generally watch over them.

As there are in aviation.

Again I say...........If you ONLY think you can, you can't! All these things come from confusing ambition with ability.

Snoopy152

9th Feb 2012, 07:13

Interesting how most of you consider yourself to be superior pilots than my Dad. Perhaps you should consider what you write on the internet. Thankyou OA for your considered comments and the other, very few, respectful people. I wonder if you will enjoy the speculation of people who have no idea what they're talking about after an aviation accident where YOU were the pilot? Or perhaps, you too, will be dead and the vultures will be speaking to your children instead of you. Thanks all.

Wally Mk2

9th Feb 2012, 11:15

snoopy' let me on behalf of most of us in here apologize for any comments that may have offended you or yr family,am sure it's not the the sole intention to do so.
I think you will find that most pilots are genuinely shocked to hear of such events especially when it involves other inocent people & only wish to find out what happened even in the early stages to perhaps learn from the sad event.
As long as mankind has the desire to slip our earthly bounds he will forever be challenged & we all stand humble at a brothers passing.
We wish you yr family nothing but peace.

Wmk2

flywatcher

9th Feb 2012, 20:01

Snoopy, this forum is the home of "know it alls" and "would like to be's". I am ashamed of some of the things I have seen here, I think many come from school children. I suggest you disregard their comments and accept the sincere apologies of the more mature members of this forum.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

10th Feb 2012, 03:05

To answer 'Old Akro's question....

'has our system delivered the level of flight service that it should?'

NO!!

It is very difficult at times to call ML Centre (OR BN) to ask for what should be a normal 'in-flight service' call to ascertain weather ahead or whatever other 'operational information'....IMHO.

The Centres are busy doing what centres do...and our 'trivial requests' take a low priority to someone whose 'core business' is trying to separate / sequence fast moving jet traffic. Hence....we now have the 'system' that we are left with.....for G/A, that's very little system at all.

A sad event....and a 'sad indictment' of our industry as regards G/A.

For Snoopy,

I am truly sorry for your loss.
I too do 'Angel Flights' and know how 'important' it may seem at times to complete the mission.
At a time like this, I am with Wally and Flywatcher,
"We wish your family nothing but peace..."

With Respect....

Jack Ranga

10th Feb 2012, 07:09

The Centres are busy doing what centres do...and our 'trivial requests' take a low priority to someone whose 'core business' is trying to separate

You literally sweat when an amended forecast is issued. 'General broadcast, amended area forecast area 21 available' then.......'Centre, ABC request amended forecast' This sort of stuff should not be disseminated on control frequencies...........But Dick knows best doesn't he?

Griffo, it's not trivial stuff, (as you know ;)) some of the info is critical at times. It's a system that costs a lot more done by an ATC when it could be done by a flighto. :ok:

Ex FSO GRIFFO

10th Feb 2012, 07:58

Hi Jack.........

(Always wanted to say that!!....)

You will get NO ARGUMENT from moi.....

But that is not what we are talking about on this thread today...

('Tis only 'trivial' to the 'person on the ground' whose 'core business' does not involve the passing of such info.
To the person 'in the air' requesting such info, you are correct!!)

Sorry for the 'thread drift' Snoopy....

Best Regards...

mcgrath50

10th Feb 2012, 11:45

I must admit it's caused me to go without when the Centre was under the pump (bad weather at the local intl airport) but relatively fine on my side of the ranges. The weather was meant to be fine where I was going, and it was, but I would have been squirming in my seat a little bit less if I had a dedicated guy to call. Just wasn't worth calling centre, if I could have gotten a word in!

Ex FSO GRIFFO

11th Feb 2012, 08:39

To answer Old Akro.....
Re - "There is also a very good point about why flight following is not used more commonly and why our system is not sufficiently resourced so that it can be encouraged"

'FULL SAR" - Flight Following - Used to be available by choice to all VFR flights - indeed it was mandatory for VFR CHTR flights and some others, re 'remote areas' / Nil ELT etc etc....

However, it WAS CEASED on 12/12/1991 - the FIRST of Dick's cuts to remove the 'duplication' of services - his words - and get rid of Flight Service.

"Your safety will be enhanced and it will cost you less" - was the mantra of the day.

So, the pilots of less than 20 year's experience will not know about the 'real 'you beaut' system we USED to have. The one that grew by 'evolution' out of 'necessity' as it was at the time it was developed, to cater for Australia's vast distances and small, spread out population.

A planned VFR flight approaching a destination when the ETA was close to Last Light, would be asked by the FSO, who was 'responsible' for the passing of all operational info to all flights in 'his' airspace, for an updated Estimate, and advised what LL was for that location.

IF the pilot's ETA was AFTER LL then the 'usual' question then put to the pilot was 'Advise your intentions'.
This was usually sufficient to draw the pilot's attention to land at a suitable alternate nearby ad. OR, add power so that he would make his destination by LL- hopefully.

Additionally, ANY amended weather likely to effect the safety of the flight would be directed to the pilot as a matter of course - that was a part of the 'Flight Following'.....

But all of that is now history, and is of academic interest only.....It was paid for by the way, by a small tax of a couple of cents or so / litre on avgas.
Now there is still a tax on your avgas, but that goes somewhere else....
Others may enlighten us - I've lost interest in such things - a looong time ago.

Not be seen a 'drift' nor as a detraction from the real subject matter here - just to answer and to provide some background info to Akro's question.

We deal with what we have, and it ain't much for the G/A pilot.

'Call Flightwatch' on HF - if possible.
The number of VHF outlets for this are minimal. I don't know if they are available in the area of interest in this case.
The only ones left in WA are the ones which were 'surplus' to ATC req's when the older 'F.S.' freq's were allocated to ATC use.

I guess the only choice left is for the G/A VFR pilot REQUIRING something, and can't get a word in, is to make a 'PAN' call, and say that they REQUIRE
(As distinct from 'request') whatever it is they are after.....

Nothing that may have affected the sad outcome of this flight however.

Old Akro

20th Sep 2012, 07:12

No sign of the ATSB report that was supposed to be released today.

Investigation: AO-2011-100 - Collision with terrain - Piper PA-28-180 aircraft, VH-POJ, 40 km north of Horsham, Vic, 15 August 2011 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-100.aspx)

53 weeks & counting

nomorecatering

22nd Sep 2012, 06:52

The preliminary accident report is very telling.

For the last 3 years I have authorised student solo navs, upt o 20 of them almost every day, and done probably 400 hrs of Nav training myself in and around the Bendigo, Nhill, Horsham area i can attest that just because the ground is dead flat it is no less dangerous than the hilly bits.

The wx in that area can be shocking, the forcast can indicate few at 2000, scattered at 7000. But if there is a front moving through or a trough, you can end up at 500 agl, in very heavy rain with maybe 1000m vis. In that area especially NE of Horsham I have been in rain so heavy it was IMC...yes i do have an instrument rating. Ive had to turn the cockpit lights on in the middle of the day because it got that dark. i think I have some photos somewhere, cause unless you have seen it, you wont believe that the wx can deteriorate so much in such a short time.

The report says there were inters with 1000ft cloudbase. The fact that he was ducking and weaving indicates that there was some severe wx around, and was looking for an escape. Now if it can get so dark as to need cockpit lights in the middle of the day, then 20 mins before end of daylight, it would have been very, very dark. In that sitiation, there is no horizon period. Even on the best nights, there is little ground lighting.

Wallsofchina

22nd Sep 2012, 07:20

and big acreage paddocks, so a lot more space between house lights, and more space between towns.

Old Akro

22nd Sep 2012, 21:57

I posted to highlight that a full year later, the ATSB has failed to meet its own deadline for the final report. Not to reopen debate.

This is what the ATSB say they do (edited for brevity):

conduct impartial, systemic and timely safety investigations
report safety issues clearly and objectively, without attributing blame or liability
promote effective safety action.

They are failing to achieve their objectives by a wide margin. 54 weeks and counting cannot be regarded as timely and the delay severely compromises the potential safety benefit.

Jabawocky

22nd Sep 2012, 22:56

Under funded

Under staffed

Under staffed with well qualified folk to bring on future generations

I am sure the list could go on, this is just a wild guess of mine, but it is probably close to the truth:uhoh:

Old Akro

23rd Sep 2012, 00:47

Jaba

Probably true, but that's all just excuses.

Why do we tolerate bad performance from our government agencies. Especially when their performance falls so far short of their own stated objectives. We pay enough tax - especially in Aviation. We should stop accepting sub standard service.

Clearedtoreenter

23rd Sep 2012, 01:24

Old Akro
Why is it late?
The sad outcomes and reasons are probably clear enough but bearing in mind the different interests and circumstances of this one, it might be reasonable to presume that there's probably a fair amount of argy bargy going on behind the scenes about which spin this particular report is going to present.. We await an unbiased and well considered report with interest, just like the Norfolk one.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

23rd Sep 2012, 01:26

We certainly object to paying heaps for sub-standard services Mr 'A', ....

The question is, how can we change this situation?

Voting periods are simply too far apart, and, the 'other choice' has shown no interest in GA either.....

'Tis a very 'sad' situation!!!:(

(A horses head on the foot of the bed...?)

:}

Old Akro

23rd Sep 2012, 04:55

Its nearly 3 weeks late by the ATSB nominated release date. So they fail on that without considering whether 13 months after the accident is excessive. It certainly fails to meet the ATSB stated objectives.

I assume you are being sarcastic about the Norfolk Is report? Its even being challenged by the flying community in the US.

bentleg

3rd Dec 2013, 07:27

ATSB report (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4462266/ao-2011-100_final.pdf)has issued.

An unnecessary tragedy. Compulsion to get there.....he was concerned about the weather and passed close to a serviceable airport (Warracknabeal) not long before. We can learn from this experience.

Old Akro

3rd Dec 2013, 07:30

2 years and 4 months in preparation! There's my reading for tonight!

VH-XXX

3rd Dec 2013, 08:06

Don't hold your breath Old Akro, the second half are appendices citing US statistics and spatial disorientation occurences.

So many things were wrong in this crash;

- Pilot recency
- Lack of experience
- Use of seatbelts
- Dark night
- Rain and cloud
- Aircraft overdue for maintenance

Angel Flight need to immediately up their minimum standards as a result of this and rigorously check pilots, as simply relying on people to follow the CASA requirements clearly doesn't and didn't work.

UnderneathTheRadar

3rd Dec 2013, 08:18

Couple of thoughts and observations:

- ATSB has accepted as fait acomplit that the CASR changes are happening today as closing out of the safety issue with recency of NVFR. Now that's not happened - will ATSB review the report and outcomes?

- What I don't understand in all VFR into IMC and similar type reports (this one included) is that the phrase "wing leveling autopilot" is never mentioned. I don't think it unreasonable that the consideration be given to requiring one for NVFR operations. In this and so many other cases, as soon as the pilot lost visual reference, all he had to do was switch it on.

Aussie Bob

3rd Dec 2013, 08:44

I don't think it unreasonable that the consideration be given to requiring one for NVFR operations. In this and so many other cases, as soon as the pilot lost visual reference, all he had to do was switch it on.

Yeah yeah yeah, let's mandate it, effectively ending night VFR. Let's see ... cost of fitting, cost of maintaining, training to use and making sure they all work. Beaudy Radar, great suggestion :ugh:

It would be easier to outlaw NVFR. The answer to all this is NOT mandating equipment.

Flying Binghi

3rd Dec 2013, 08:56

It is a shame they don't comment on the instrument/avionics fit out. The only reference we have for the panel is: "...score marks made by the rotating gyro rotor on the inside of the attitude indictor’s casing indicated that the gyro was rotating at impact..." From personal experience i've found recent panel changes to the regular ride can be disorientating at times.

I wonder how far away the laptop was from the six pack scan ?

"...Analysis of the recorded Global Position System (GPS) data retrieved from the on-board tablet computer identified that..."

"...the effect of the computer’s light level on the pilot’s night vision was unable to be established but it may have been another element that limited the pilot’s vision outside of the cockpit..."

.

VH-XXX

3rd Dec 2013, 09:02

The pilot clearly was not current for the intended operation.

Solve that problem and the issues all go away. You don't need additional equipment to fly NVFR or IFR.

nomorecatering

3rd Dec 2013, 09:25

Just had a read of the report. Quite a sobering read, a tale of poor judgement and decision making and perhaps a cavalier attitude to details and regulations.

The aircraft was 9 hrs past its maintenance release expiry. This is not a small overfly by 0.5. 9 hrs represents multiple flights. In my experience, pilots who are slack in one area, and I mean very slack, usually show up major deficiencies in other areas too.

A low overcast over a sparsely lit area is .......IMC. No ifs, buts or maybeys. Its no place for anyone with only NVR rating, limited recency in NVFR and in a non_IFR aircraft. To compound matters, that period before EOD where its not quite daylight, but night quite darkness is a real danger zone. It can be impossible to pick out ground lights if they are there in the first place. An iPad on the yoke or instrument panel turned up to full brightness can reduce your vision out the front window by a frightening degree.

Flying Binghi

3rd Dec 2013, 10:15

via nomorecatering:
...a read of the report. Quite a sobering read, a tale of poor judgement and decision making and perhaps a cavalier attitude to details and regulations.

Hmmm... dont know that is the case. Seems he had form for doing the right thing...

From the report, Pg 19: "The pilot was reported to be cautious in his operational decision making when deteriorating weather conditions were forecast. He had cancelled a number of previous Angel Flights due to poor weather. All but one of those flights was cancelled prior to its commencement, with the other one being cancelled airborne as the pilot repositioned to collect his passengers..."

The computer he had has me wondering...

Pg 19: "...increased workload and detrimental effect on identifying external visual cues associated with using the computer and possible distraction associated with reflected light, would have increased the likelihood for that to occur..."

Was this computer a new toy and being used for the first time ? New electronic bling in the cockpit can be very distracting and cause fixation at the wrong time. Had he used a computer at night before ?

An out of date maintenance release could be a one-off for this pilot. We don't know from the report.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4462266/ao-2011-100_final.pdf

.

Jabawocky

3rd Dec 2013, 10:22

I am going to be harsh. Aussie Bob you are right, there is no sense in legislating this or that. Or anything else. You can't legislate out stupid. What this guy did was stupid.

Give him a wing leveller or an EFIS with SV, he could well have just pushed further into trouble before he crashed. Maybe he would have gotten out of trouble but he had no right being there in the first place.

Everyone now suffers from knee jerk reactions.

Flying in GA is not that dangerous if you remove a whole number of dumb actions. The saying goes don't do something that would look dumb in the NTSB report. Remove those things and the safety stats start looking stunningly better.

Knee jerk ranting over for now…off to read the report. Yes I know Ready, Fire, Aim.

triton140

3rd Dec 2013, 10:24

Probably belongs in another thread, but for me this highlights the issue with regulatory reform in this country:

During its investigation the ATSB identified a safety issue in respect of the requirements for pilots to maintain currency, recency and proficiency for night VFR flight under dark night conditions. In consequence, on 23 October 2002, the ATSB issued safety recommendation R20020193 that stated:

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) review the general operational requirements, training requirements, flight planning requirements and guidance material provided to pilots conducting VFR operations in dark night conditions.

In response to this recommendation, on 13 December 2002, CASA advised that:

CASA acknowledges the intent of this Recommendation. As part of the proposed CASR Part 61, CASA is developing the requirements for night VFR ratings which will be based on the existing Civil Aviation Order CAO 40.2.2. In addition, a draft competency standard for night visual flight operations has been developed for inclusion in the proposed CASR Part 61 Manual of Standards.

So - in October 2002, ATsB issues a fairly broad-based recommendation covering several areas (not just competency). With amazing alacrity, CAsA responds in December with a firm commitment to develop a draft competency standard - and Part 61, 11 years on, is still not a reality, and would not address the 2002 ATsB recommendation anyway.

We need to learn from this tragedy, I couldn't help but think the PIC made a whole lot of sensible decisions - landing at Bendigo presumably due to weather concerns, accessing NAIPS there to confirm, subsequently diverting to the north - I could maybe see myself making similar decisions in the circumstances. Maybe I might have focussed more on last light, maybe not, who knows (now I will). And I can accept Jaba's view above - but we need to understand what led him into this situation, when prior to that he seemed to take a conservative approach.

Unfortunately, the ATsB report gives us as practitioners precious little guidance on how we may avoid a similar fate.

And CAsA, as usual, is dragging the regulatory chain.

Flying Binghi

3rd Dec 2013, 10:54

Interesting having a look at the aircraft track on page 2 of the report.
I see the aircraft was fairly near to a straight track untill Wallop (cloud blocking perhaps), then the track goes south towards Horsham, then, probably due to it being clearer, heads of to Nhill. Musta been a lot of head down time on that GPS computer.

.

Old Akro

3rd Dec 2013, 12:31

Firstly, it looks like CASA forgot to tell the ATSB that the Dec 4 changes to licencing have been put off. Getting this wrong on the first page of a report issued 14 days after the announced deferment is just plain amateur.

Secondly, it just reads like an undergrad student report who doesn't quite get it. I wonder if the author has actually flown in a light aircraft.

Thirdly, this accident occurred 5 minutes BEFORE last light. Most of the diatribe about NVFR is simply not relevant. Furthermore, the PIC had a night check flight with an instructor 31 days before the accident. He met even the ATSB's recommendations for tighter NVFR currency.

Fourthly, this report continues the unacceptable practice of previous reports by not tabling any primary data. It does not append a copy of the actual weather report - it only contains the ATSB's own paraphrasing of the report. It does not examine if the weather report received at Bendigo had any changes from the one received before departure from Essendon. What happened at Bendigo that encouraged him to continue?

The flightpath from Wallop onwards is a bit bizarre and is probably consistent with the pilot becoming unsure of his position. The final report mentions only the tablet PC GPS guidance. However, the preliminary report notes that the aircraft had a Lowrance 2000c GPS panel mounted in the aircraft. If the tablet was being used as the primary navigation device (not countenanced in 2011) then it can be imagined that he became disoriented while looking at the tablet. But how do we know if it or the Lowrance was being used as the primary navigation guidance device? One would reach a different conclusion if it was the Lowrance. Was the Lowrance database up to date? Why was it presence mentioned in the preliminary report and not the final report? What was the tablet? What software was in using? Was the software up to date? All important questions that remain un-asked by this report. Note: this accident occurred before OZRUNWAYS, etc was legal as in flight reference.

The report note "that a cold front was moving across the west of Victoria", but doesn't position the aircraft in relation to the front. The report included emotive, subjective language like "...had been a terrible day" (p3), but if the front had passed the weather behind may have been significantly better. What is the purpose of quoting such emotive, qualitative and potentially irrelevant comments? A IFR pilot flying to Warracknabeal is quoted commenting on cloud cover, but the report fails to state what altitude he was flying. It may well have been 6000 ft (ICAO level above LSALT to Hamilton) or more, in which case his experience would have been completely differen and of limited relevance.

The preliminary report lists METAR data for Horsham at the time, but the final report omits it. Why? The Horsham METAR doesn't fit all that well with the tale that the ATSB weaves. Is this why?

As noted by Jaba (I think), the report does not tell us if the aircraft had any sort of autopilot. Once again, this is pretty important information.

If the aircraft had been able to fly direct from Wallop to Nhill it may well have landed in diminishing visibility before published light light. The real question is why the flight path became so erratic.

And I struggle to see that a NVMC rated pilot with a 1.5 hour check flight with an instructor only a month before would lose control after a handful of minutes in poor visibility before published last light.

Its an extraordinarily sad accident. The pilot appears to have had a number of lapses in judgement, but none should have resulted in this accident.

Old Akro

3rd Dec 2013, 12:41

Angel Flight need to immediately up their minimum standards as a result of this and rigorously check pilots, as simply relying on people to follow the CASA requirements clearly doesn't and didn't work.

XXX - for the record Angel Flight did this quite some time ago. They certainly didn't wait for the 2+ years for the ATSB.

The report looks at the conduct of Angel Flight on pages 9&10. I would suggest that the comparison with 10 North American Angel Flight organisations shows the Australian operation to be pretty much at best practice. Can we say the same of CASA?

Old Akro

3rd Dec 2013, 13:02

There is another issue which deserves to be discussed - at least enough to discount it. Most of the discussion is about the pilot's errors & weaknesses. Flying Magazine (US) currently has an interesting blog on why pilots vilify pilots

Why Pilots Love to Vilify Other Pilots | Flying Magazine (http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-direct/why-pilots-love-vilify-other-pilots)

Without meaning any disrespect, or making any accusations, I would think that an accident report that considers all the possible causes might also ask if the passenger seat belt being undone and the erratic flight path are related. The report says the passengers were nervous. Nervous passengers generally tighten seat belts, not undo them. Did a passenger have a panic attack and disrupt / distract the pilot? Did a passenger grab the controls? Why wouldn't a creditable report consider this - even if only to dismiss it?

Deaf

3rd Dec 2013, 13:08

If the tablet was being used as the primary navigation device (not countenanced in 2011) then it can be imagined that he became disoriented while looking at the tablet.

A moving map display would not help on the disorientation front.

youngmic

3rd Dec 2013, 14:33

Old Akro,

Thirdly, this accident occurred 5 minutes BEFORE last light. Most of the diatribe about NVFR is simply not relevant. Furthermore, the PIC had a night check flight with an instructor 31 days before the accident. He met even the ATSB's recommendations for tighter NVFR currency.

The lack of relevance re. NVFR is only so because it seems fairly clear that effectively this poor fellow was actually working to the same level as a bad wx night IFR circling approach pilot would be at a remote strip. That is no cake walk even for a seasoned driver. The last 10 minutes of this flight would be nothing like what NVFR is intended to be, instead it was real dark with low cloud and rain. That's IFR.

And I struggle to see that a NVMC rated pilot with a 1.5 hour check flight with an instructor only a month before would lose control after a handful of minutes in poor visibility before published last light.

I don't and given the information supplied in the report the outcome has few surprises.

Sunfish

3rd Dec 2013, 18:33

Wing leveller won't actuate if you are already in a spiral dive. Secondly, some autopilots, like the king fitted in C172, are not very reliable.

Old Akro

3rd Dec 2013, 19:15

Wing leveller won't actuate if you are already in a spiral dive.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the aircraft was in a spiral dive. In fact the heading reversals would suggest otherwise.

Interestingly the ATSB has selectively chosen to plot rate of change of altitude but not altitude. This shows both ascent & descent. Once again this does not support a spiral dive. Similarly, it plots rate of change of airspeed, but not airspeed, but there is no trend of continuously increasing airspeed as occurs in a spiral dive.

If this aircraft had an autopilot, its most likely to be a Piper Altimatic 2 with heading hold.

My main point is that a diligent report would cover this.

VH-XXX

3rd Dec 2013, 19:16

And I struggle to see that a NVMC rated pilot with a 1.5 hour check flight with an instructor only a month before would lose control after a handful of minutes in poor visibility before published last light.

I do. Hence why ATSB and CASA are now focusing heavily on the "dark night" issues. Where was the NVFR checkride, a city orbit? (Apologies if that was in the report and I missed it)

Ultralights

3rd Dec 2013, 20:56

How many NVFR pilots have actual experience with No moon, dark night ops? i know a few in the Sydney region who have never left the Sydney basin or central coast lights doing a NVFR rating. NVFR outside metro areas is essentially IFR and should be treated and taught as such.

and the crash site suggests to me he hit thr ground in a relative wings level attitude. if in a spiral dive, the wreckage would be over a smaller area.
IMO, he was scud running, and in dark condidtions, lost sight of terrain. sure, it was 5 mins before last light, but 5 mins before last light on a cloudy overcast day still gets dark enough to be considered night..

Flying Binghi

3rd Dec 2013, 21:32

Heres a link to old BOM radar loops.
Somebody who knows how to take a screen shot picture might be able to post it here.

BoM Melbourne Radar Loop - Rain Rate - IDR023 (http://www.theweatherchaser.com/radar-loop/IDR023-melbourne)

Old Akro

4th Dec 2013, 19:19

That's interesting. Never knew it was available. It begs the question why the ATSB did not include a screen shot. This shows NIL rain in the area at the time of the accident. Which is consistent with the Horsham METAR detailed in the preliminary report, but omitted from the final report.

Kharon

4th Dec 2013, 19:53

The inimitable Sarcs – Post 73 ATSB (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/520516-atsb-reports-4.html#post8181951) – has provided some of the answers. Comparing the very different 'grasping the nettle' approach taken by TC/TSB as opposed to the week kneed, technical waffle, broken promises and ass covering tactics used by our lot.

One burning question is how many little smoking holes equal one bigun; add the numbers. We have buried enough the past 12- 18 months to fill a regional airliner. Do we have a problem ? – Oh yes, I believe we do.

There is a clearly defined, (by grave markers) ancient case for examining IMC/VMC related accidents, there is subtle but important 'mind set' factor which needs be addressed. The requirement for 'instrument' flight training is mandated, why?, well for one, so that an inadvertent excursion into cloud can be managed, for another, so that when caught out on a dark and stormy a 'rough but safe' short passage 'on the clocks' can be managed.

(Q) is it safer to hold MSA on the clocks and depart the fix or; try and scud run it home ?. The question is it operationally safe and 'illegal'; or, is it 'legal' but operationally unsound is begging answers. Is fear of mother earth less than the fear of having your life made a living hell for a short accidental (or necessary) IMC excursion?.

Can't fly on the clocks for five minutes? – go learn, go practice, do 10 minutes in every hour on the dials – it may, one day just save your hide – if the gods choose to spare you....

spinex

4th Dec 2013, 20:15

There's a whole 'nother can of worms Kharon - you'll have the "don't tell them about sex or they'll all want to do it" pundits loading up both barrels.

The one thing I did want to raise though was the bit about having your life made a living hell for an inadvertant IMC excursion, does anyone have first hand experience of tea and bikkies after such an incident? Reason I ask is I did the old ATNS tour a while ago and had a recording of exactly that played. In the discussion afterward, the point was made that there was no sanction, a written please explain and that was the end of it. Was he just lucky or is this the general approach to pilots who 'fess up early in the piece?

andrewr

4th Dec 2013, 20:52

This shows NIL rain in the area at the time of the accident.

I think that a limitation of the radar is that it can't see below the horizon. The further away from it you are, the more likely it is that rain could be below the radar horizon.

I have been rained on with nothing showing on the radar a lot closer to Melbourne than that. It means that the rain is coming from low cloud...

VH-XXX

4th Dec 2013, 21:29

I wonder how many NVFR pilots out there that got their ratings perhaps last year, let alone 20 years ago that could survive if you put a blanket over their windscreen after takeoff to fly 50 miles to to an unfamilar airport and take the blanket off at 5 miles to run with only runway lights visible on a DARK night.

It's currently legal for a NVFR to fly in these conditions.... is it not?

ABC + Wallup for starters.

Stikybeke

4th Dec 2013, 22:13

This is a terrible tragic accident and I offer my condolences to those effected in any way by this event.

I don't mean to be callous or disrespectful in any way however to me this accident was totally avoidable simply by following the most basic of all rules and asking (as a pilot) the one question that has been ingrained in all of us repeatedly (like at every operational licencing or endorsement test, BFR or whatever) over the years.

Q. "Can I legally fly this aircraft if it doesn't have a current maintenance release?"

I think everyone knows the answer to that question.

Sorry,

Stiky.
:(

VH-XXX

4th Dec 2013, 22:48

I think everyone knows the answer to that question.

As much as this sounds bad and as illegal as it may be, being 9 hours over on the MR it's not something that they have highlighted in detail as contributing.

Look closely at the MR and you'll see that is has the validity of the MR with an "OR" on it; that is by date OR by hours. This is for the "annual inspection." If the maintenance schedule / manufacturer allows for it, you can do more than 100 hours in the calendar year. Pilots and owners should stop calling it the "100 hourly" as technically it's an "annual inspection."

Old Akro

5th Dec 2013, 00:30

ABC + Wallup for starters.

These 2 cases are at completely different ends of the spectrum. I've flown in the area surrounding Woomera at night on a regular basis and an outback at night is a completely different kettle of fish. Indeed I was in William Creek a day or so after the ABC report was released and discussed it with Pilotette, who commented that she would not have liked to have flown that night. In the instance of the ABC chopper there would have been some light reference in the sky (stars) but absolutely nothing on the ground. In this instance there would have been no light reference in the sky whatsover (due to cloud), but some ground lights visible.

I landed at Tullaramine in a kero burner shortly before the accident and recall thinking that the weather behind the front was a lot better than I expected with very good visibility (as generally happens after rain). Melbourne is a fair distance from the accident site, but I recall that the front had passed and the weather was improving. My guess is that there was no rain at the time (supported by the weather radar and the Horsham METAR that is shown in the prelim report but absent from the final report). My guess is that the visibility was good (ie clean air) but with fading light. It should be noted that last light occurs later at altitude, so it would have seemed a little better in the air. The accident occurred less than 10 minutes after sunset and about 10 minutes before theoretical last light. The flight was also into the setting sun, which helps prolong light a little also.

Despite having access to altitude information from both GPS and Transponder returns, the ATSB report makes no mention at all about cruising altitudes. The ATSB report has a discussion about the track LSALT (it says 2100 ft) but is completely mute about the aircraft's altitude. The only mention of altitude at all is a vague report from a witness that the aircraft was low. Based on the report, for all we know the aircraft may have been cruising above the LSALT up until the accident. However it should be noted that despite the track LSALT of 2100 ft the aircraft could have successfully made it to Nhil, Horsham or Warracknabeal at 200 ft AGL from the crash location. The area of the crash is as flat as the proverbial hat.

My guess is that at the area of the accident, the lights of Horsham (18 nm), Dimboola (7nm), Warracknabeal (12nm), Jeparit (18nm) and even potentially Nhill (27nm) would have been visible. If there was a cloudbase, then probably there was light reflection from the cloud as well as direct light. If the Horsham PAL had been activated, you'd just about see the runway. There were probably also a number of small towns with a couple of lights within 10 nm, including: Antwerp, Murra Warra, Kellac, Wallop, Canum, plus farm lights and probably some traffic on the highway beneath. One might have considered that a reference flight for comparison in the area on a similar night might have been possible sometime in the 2 years and 4 months that this report took to write.

There has been a lot of discussion about disorientation from looking down to a tablet PC on the pilots lap. I have heard 3rd hand that it was an ipad and that a yoke mount had been installed for it the day prior. This changes the impression of the situation a bit. Once again, one might have thought that this was worthy of note by the ATSB.

This is a pilot who had a 1.5 hour NVMC check flight with an instructor in a similar remote rural area a month beforehand. Together with an established NVMC rating and experience (even if limited) over several years, something is wrong with the licencing and check system if he couldn't maintain control 10 minutes after sunset.

By comparison, the potential that he was trying to deal with a passenger whose nervousness was documented and whom had unbuckled her seatbelt is not discussed at all. Isn't it possible that the passenger became agitated and that contributed to the pilots erratic heading control, erratic altitude control and erratic airspeed control?

I'm not trying to defend the pilot who has clearly made a number of errors of judgment. Nor am I trying to shift blame to the passenger. My point is against the ATSB who (again) have delivered an incomplete report, without any primary data, with areas of conflict with facts presented in the preliminary report and inconsistencies in the report itself. We deserve better - we are certainly paying for it. This is a report that has cost us probably more than $200,000.