Crash at Hamilton Island

[bboy]

7 News Brisbrane are reporting a "Light Plane" crash south of Hamo. Fatalities involved.

At least two people are dead after a light plane crashed on Hamilton Island in Queensland's Whitsundays late this afternoon.

The crash happened around 5:30pm.

A spokeswoman for Hamilton Island resort says few details are available at this stage and authorities are making their way to the island.

ABC News.

Condolances to all involved

[Wirraway]

ABC News Online
Posted: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 19:04 AEST

Six confirmed dead after Hamilton Island plane crash

Six people are confirmed dead, after a light plane crashed in the Whitsundays in Queensland.

The single engine Piper Cherokee Six plane took off from Hamilton Island just after 5:00pm AEST.

Peter Gibson, from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, says the plane crashed into a quarry at the end of the island's runway.

Police and air safety authorities are travelling to the scene.

[Willie Nelson]

I would be interested to know if this was HIA as they used to operate VH-PPG which was unfortunatley lost in what I believe to be an injury free fire at Schute (spelling..?) Harbour.


A sad day indeed,

Our thoughts are with the families of those involved......

Willie

[Wirraway]

AAP

Island resort air crash
By Chris Herde
September 26, 2002

SIX people died when a light aircraft crashed and burst into flames shortly after take-off from Queensland's Hamilton Island resort.

Investigators said the six stood no chance as the single-engined Piper Cherokee 6-300, fully laden with fuel, smashed into a quarry near the end of the island's Great Barrier Reef Airport around 5.30pm (AEST).

The plane was carrying five passengers, four of whom were believed to be from the one family, and a pilot.

The plane was on a charter flight and was operated by Hamilton Island Aviation.

An Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) spokesman confirmed all on board had died in the crash.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said the aircraft lost control shortly after take-off.

"Because it was full of fuel it has burst into flames and everyone has perished on board," Mr Gibson told Sky News.

"There was no chance of any survivors."

Mr Gibson said weather conditions were good.

"So at this stage it's a mystery as to what went wrong," he said.

Mr Gibson said it was unclear early tonight where the aircraft was headed, but the company involved operated charter flights between Hamilton, the mainland and other islands in the Whitsunday group.

Air crash investigators would examine the wreckage at first light tomorrow and interview witnesses.

"We'll be putting all that information together to get a very good picture of exactly what went wrong," Mr Gibson said.

"It's too early to speculate at this stage as to what causes may have been in place."

Mr Gibson said the runway at Hamilton was about 1700m long and was capable of taking large jets.

"So there's nothing there that's difficult for a small six-seater light aircraft," he said.

Mr Gibson said he was not aware of any previous accidents at Hamilton.

The crash is another blow to the island resort which has been financially hit by September 11 and the Ansett collapse a year ago.

Hamilton Island Ltd recently started looking to sell off assets to maintain its share price after recording a 51.1 per cent fall in net profit.

Queensland Tourism Industry Corporation chief executive Daniel Gschwind described the accident as a terrible tragedy.

"When aviation accidents occur it's terrible for all concerned," he said.

"I don't know the circumstances but the air services on the island have been operating for some time and I understand they had an unblemished safety record."

AAP

[bboy]

If the Cherokee 6-300 is accurate then it would be VH-MAR.
ICC is a 260.

[Hubs]

My thoughts are with the family and friends of all involved.

If anyone has any information regarding the pilot involved I would very much apprieciate it. My friend that works for HIA is uncontactable.

There is no requirement to release any indentity. But information regarding if he was new to the company, or where previously worked would help.

A very sad day! Let us remember our fellow pilots. :( :( :(

Signed: very concerned friends

[kavu]

27 September 2002

Crash investigators are expected on Hamilton Island in Queensland shortly to being their probe into the light plane tragedy that has killed an Auckland family.

A married couple and their two children died when the Piper Cherokee they were in crashed soon after takeoff.

They have been named as Aucklanders Kevin and Joanne Bowles, their daughter Sophie and son Michael and were killed when the aircraft crashed soon after taking off from Hamilton Island.

The pilot and an American tourist also died when the pilot lost control of the aircraft.

Investigators from the Air Transport Safety Bureau will be at the scene later this morning.

Queensland police spokeswoman Sergeant Julie Elliot says a special police unit will also arrive on the island this morning.

Aviation officials say the weather was fine and there is no obvious reason for the crash.

Hamilton Island is one of 74 tropical islands that lie between the Queensland Coast and the Great Barrier Reef.

It is the largest tourist facility in the Whitsundays, with six hotels providing 750 rooms and apartments. The resort is serviced by nearly 50 flights a week from Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Cairns.


© 2002 NZCity, IRN

[imabell]

the pilot was quite new to the company, his name has not been released.

condolences to all.

[High Altitude]

R.I.P.

[Desert Flower]

bboy, I think you're right with that rego. Although the aircraft was operated by HIA, it was registered to Heli-Aust Tourism Pty Ltd. From my checks of the register VH-MAR had to be the one. Another very sad day in aviation.

[deadhead]

:( Years ago I had an engine failure after take-off in a Cherokee Six, fully laden:eek:, and got it going again by immediately changing tanks. Pants also needed changing.:o The four tanks and a fuel selector valve and lever designed by Groucho Marx have probably claimed another aircraft.:mad: I don't mean to pre-empt the investigation like this, but that system is just like so much complete bollocks. It is just too easy to think you have the, say, left main selected with the lever, but the valve may still be drawing from, say, the left tip. You have to positively ensure the lever is seated in the detent. A visual check isn't good enough.

My instructor would not let me fly solo in it unless I had passed an oral examination on the fuel system and its traps, including knowing the time it took for fuel to travel the lines from the tip tanks (14 seconds at full power to 35 seconds at approach power - I can still remember!). And when the failure occurred to me, you can guess what my instructor did ...:rolleyes:

[goatgruff]

Deadhead,

I'm sure you mean well, but the content of your post is of no relavance to the pertaining situation, of no comfort to the relatives involved, and could easily be picked up upon as authoritive information by the journo's who scan this site searching for titilating headlines.

Regards,
Goatgruff.

[gaunty]

News and witness reports of an attempted return to land, sounds distressingly familiar and the crash pics back it up.

[Luke SkyToddler]

My dim memory tells me that it's very very hard to fill a Cherokee 6 with full fuel and 6 standard - weight POB without busting MTOW by some spectacular amount ...

[flipside]

Goatgruff, I don't see any problem with Deadhead informing us about what he considers a complicated aircraft type fuel system. this site is probably not viewed by relatives and journos will write whatever they want.

[toohey]

To all involved I send my condolences, we are a small community and we need to offer support to each other because we dont know what is around the corner.We are in a competive environment but who cares get away from the negative and see the positives we are very lucky in what we do!!!!

[Toodogs]

Luke SkyToddler,

I beleive two of the occupants were young children. Having a few facts in hand is a usefull thing!

[collar]

heart felt condolences to all involved in this. interested to read in earlier report about the plane having full tanks...from memory this machine had a mzfw limit of 1412 with tow 1542 which was always an issue. must have been very close to mzfw, in which case full tips and a little in each main for t/o and ldg. i doubt very much that full tanks would have worked with a load like that, must be an error on the reporters behalf.

[Sqwark2000]

:( Condolences to those touched by this tragedy.

For those that are interested:

PA32
Basic Weight 920kg approx.
MZFW 1411kg
MTOW 1542kg
Main Tanks 90L each
Tip Tanks 68L each
Unsusable 1L per tank
Max baggage 2 x 45kg lockers

Hamilton Is. a/c load possibly:

Basic weight 920kg
Pilot 77kg
3 Adult pax 231kg
2 Child pax 92kg
ZFW 1320kg

Max Baggage 91kg
Max fuel with max baggage = 181L (Full tips + 45L in Mains)
Max Fuel with nil baggage = 308L (Full tips + 172 L in Mains)

Assuming all pax day trippers with 1 x 5kg bag each, then aircraft could have possibly carried a large fuel load.

Note: Std pax weights based on NZ figures.

R.I.P

S2K

[UFLA]

Our local paper said that the aircraft had only been on the ground for 10 minutes prior to departure. Pretty quick to load 5 pax AND refuel isn't it?

Does Hamilton Island have fuel?

I have a real problem with the "Full Tanks" aspect.

[skychaser]

I am not a conspiracy theorist at all but after reading the article in the Sunday Mail today (29/9/02-page 9) we might have to look beyond the square. The US citizen who so tragically lost his life had a father who was and I quote a veteran CIA counter- terrorism expert. The US couple had just spent the night with the US Ambassador to Australia a long time friend and the US woman, who's life was spared by a twist of fate, had written an analysis of how a terrorist attack on US air bases would affect their combat capabilities. The couple also worked for SAIC, one of the largest research and engineering companies in the US.
Am I finding too much subtext here?

[amos2]

Yeah!...I think that's a long shot when you consider that turning back to the field instead of landing straight ahead is an accepted no no. I say that without disrespect to the families of those involved.

[Foyl]

In answer to your question Skychaser - YES.

My condolences to all involved in this tragic accident.

[Icarus2001]

What an unadulterated load of rubbish from Skychaser. So it was a "hit"? Just stop and THINK for a minute. IF you wanted to remove some one wouldn't it be quietly and disreetly? A light aircraft crash is guaranteed to make the front page.

Oh I just realised, it was a wind up. Good one.:rolleyes:

[Creampuff]

Is anyone else as disgusted as I am at the ATSB's exploitation of this tragic accident to promote the flight recorder issue?

[GAMAN]

Jesus, you can't be serious! FDR's in a cherokee six? I fail to see what that will achieve that a decent scene investigation won't.
This winds me me up a bit FDr's TCAS, EGPWS. The expense would put most companies out of business. Or maybe the ATSB/CASA would just as sooner not have people fly comercially in light aircraft?

[compressor stall]

GAMAN

Your last sentence sums it up in a nutshell.

[Torres]

The media reports the engine "spluttered" and the aircraft turned back, with the usual result. Conspiracy theories are ludicrous.

If the aircraft was the one I think it was, I am surprised the ATSB issued (according to the media) an immediate interim report, indicating a Log Book and history "clean bill of health."

I think you will find the FDR currently being discussed for light aircraft is a small and relatively low cost solid state device, currently under development and trial.

[dash 27]

Tragic for all involved and condolences to all.

A few issues to comment on here. The previous operator used partenavias and 402's for the island hopping, and the new operator needs to reinvent the wheel and use "barely" singles.
The media has also issued a statement that the crash was caused by possible fuel contamination. With respect to the 1300hr deceased pilot, I speculate that the accident was caused when he decided to turn a fully laydened sh#tbox back at low level. How many times do flying instructors and operators for that matter need to drum into students heads that turning back will kill you. In fact a particular 208 operator in QLD tells his boys that a caravan can turn back "feathered" from 500 ft. Thats fine on an empty a/c, but they seldom are. This false sense of security is a bad thing to install in junior pilots minds. Trying to bring the bird back is a financial issue, its the low level spin recovery that kills the boys.
The better outcome here would have been that the GA pilot lost his job (which is what happens these days), and the insurance company is b#tching about a wet Cherokee 6 or one that ground looped on the remaining runway, and every one walked away. But sadly the newspapers didn't read that way.

If anything comes of this, lets consider the turn back issue, and maybe operators should consider suitable aircraft types for certain routes based on safety not the $$$

Be safe. :rolleyes:

[nasa]

My heart and sympathies go out to all concerned.


Seems that Grant Kenny had some type of financial interest in the aircraft....However, that aside, the local "newspaper" here on the Sunshine Coast, ran a story on the front page, by Carly Crawford, headlined Shaken Kenny to stay with aviation.....The story was a brief outline of what happened at Hamilton, the unfortunate incidents involving Grant recently (last 12- 18 months) and Grant's own staring death in the face.

Following is a brief excerpt from that story:

And Kenny himself stared death in the face when he was a passenger on a Hazelton Airlines flight from Sydney which stalled mid-air before plunging earthwards.

That incident happened on a Bathurst bound flight in June, when the 500-tonne passenger plane stalled, rolled and dived, only pulling up 65 metres before hitting the ground.

I have checked and have not made any typos.

[cracked pot]

If it was the aircraft I think it was, I had a problem with its fuel system a few years ago. Selected the left tip tank and the engine stopped. Switching bank to the mains got it going again. The engineers found a problem with the fuel selector... hope this had nothing to do with it.

Condolences to family, friends and colleagues of all involved.

[Mainframe]

Please,

none of us has Factual information on this tragedy.

The media, as always, speculates ( and reads pprune ) and it's sole interest is to sell newspapers and prime time news.

Very seldom does the media get it right, and they never apologise for their usually spectacular mistakes.

Todays news is tomorrow's fish & chips wrapper, when the story is flogged to it's end, they move on to something else.

The media, particularly with regard to aviation, have their own lexicon. "Fully laden", "Full of Fuel", etc,etc etc. is their stock in trade, uttered without verification, and arrogantly, no retraction is ever issued. I have been party to what they can say and how they say it.

None of us can make a single guess at what happened based on media reports. Think back to Whyalla Airlines, remember the absolute b**sh*t published, so much so that an operator was illegally shut down purely on the basis of the media deciding what was the cause and who was to blame. Even tricky Dicky grandstanded (and was so very wrong) on this, no-one apologised and no-one will.

I hope that none of you readers ever have to stand trial by media, and if you do, I wish you luck in having the wrong redressed.

I can assure you that both ATSB and the insurance company investigator (who is usually extremely skilled, attends most crashes and works with ATSB, NTSB and other regulatory bodies internationally) can generally, through thorough investigative work, come up with a plausible or most likely scenario, and one which usually is validated later with credible evidence.

It is disappointing that our media cannot be relied on to validate the c**p that they print, they really don't care, the old journalistic maxim of "Never let the Truth get in the way of a good Story" will always reign supreme, as unfortunately some of you may be unfortunate enough to experience in your careers.

None of us can make a judgement on the basis of media reports has to be understood by everyone, and the real maxim, "The Truth Will always Prevail" generally wins in the end.

So, please, don't second guess this on the basis of an unskilled (aviation) and poorly informed journalist who is trying to impress his/her editor with a great story.

As with Whyalla and many others, the truth will prevail.

Trust ATSB, they really do know their stuff, as does the insurance investigator, they will guide us closer to the truth than the media, and they don't use the media to get to the facts, they get the facts themselves. We will learn what did happen or may have happened, and we learn from that.

Even the reports of FDR's and CVR's are the result of the press manipulating that which they don't understand and quoting out of context. Common sense dictates that it is virtually imposssible to install a FDR in a GA aircraft, maybe a CVR, but the media does not even know the difference !

[Bon Giorno]

A bit trivial, indeed demeaning don't you think Nasa, especially given the scale of family fatalities, attempting to score brownie points by proving you're savvy enough to spot the '500 tonne' blooper by a cub reporter in a small provincial newspaper?

[Centaurus]

While nothing to do with the recent accident it may be of topical interest to know that the RFDS practice turn backs on the PC12.
The Bonanza Society Proficiency Training scheme included demonstration turn backs. And the RAAF practice turn backs on the PC9.

While reputable operators practice such nonsense and get away with it no wonder word gets around that its worth a go occasionally.

[druckmefunk]

I dont think it is fair to condemn any institution in particular for advocating turnbacks. Whilst in general it is not advisable, this is more to do with the general low performance of GA aircraft, rather than with the manoevre itself. It is simply a function of altitude/speed/distance. In a cherokee six, I suspect that there is no chance at all that it will have ever achieved a height at which a turnback would be successful. A PC9 however is a totally different kettle of fish. It has a level of performance that enables it to be able to trade speed/height/distance to make a turnback possible. In the case that an aircraft has the capability, and your company has the resources to ensure that all pilots are proficient in the manoevre (ie RAAF), and the potential to throw it away (i.e eject) still exists, then it must be preferable to train for the possibility rather than blindly eject from a recoverable situation.

[nasa]

Bon Giorno…..Trivial…..Yes…..Demeaning…..Yes….. attempting to score brownie points…..Yes….. especially given the scale of family fatalities…..Even more so.

The story by a cub reporter in a small provincial newspaper was all of the above, and was an attempt at pure sensationalism with no proper research into facts, but by putting a picture of Grant Kenny on the front page of the Provincial Newspaper in the locality where he lives and runs his businesses from, was designed purely to sell newspapers.

Your post highlighted the point I was trying to make….being savvy enough to spot the '500 tonne' blooper is easy for people involved in the industry, but is just fodder for the masses, further denigrating the aviation industry in the eyes of those who are not aware of the folly of believing the press

[Capt Vegemite]

What a terrible loss.

As far as a turn back I would think a full Cherokee six would have the glide angle of a greased crow-bar.

[Cougar]

The RAAF are very strict on teaching turnbacks. Students are NOT taught them on the PC9 - the first time anyone gets to do them is instructors course (CFS). Good article in one of the DFS Flying Safety mags (Spotlight) last year on turnbacks and their history. Worth a read if you can get your hands on it.

[compressor stall]

As this thread is diverging into a turnback debate (but that does not yet confirm what happened - we await the BASI report) people might like to refer something from the depths of pprune - started by the inimitable Centaurus.

turnbacks (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10734&highlight=turnback)

From it there is such a wealth of inexact science, so much so that it is easy to see how a pilot, young, old, black or white might make a dubious decision to give it a crack if faced with an ugly situation ahead. Personally I do not advocate it in light GA singles. Gliders (ones without the motor on the ground!) and PC12 with professioal training is a little different.

[dragchute]

Centaurus,

Didn't the RAAF lose a Winjeel and crew at Point Cook many years ago as a result of a turn-back?

[gaunty]

Regardless of whether this was or was not a turn back accident, it should be a reminder to any of the last of the hard bitten thrill seekers still alive, who might contemplate it in similar circumstances, for even a nanosecond, DONT.

If you have ANY doubts go find an Aerobat or similar with an aerobatic instructor as a safety pilot, establish a safe "base" say 3000 ft and practise takeoffs from 3,000 ft and EFATO returns from say 3,500ft and see how you get on by completing a 180 turn and stabilised for a landing flare before 3,000ft, without the aircraft departing from controlled flight.

Which is why this should NOT be attempted in a non aerobatic aircraft OR without a suitably qualified aerobatic pilot instructor alongside.

It has been thus for ever.

[deadhead]

The controlled forced landing procedure for a Cherokee Six is to maintain 75?? KIAS with wings level, and wherever the nose is pointing, that is where you will be landing. (I don't recall the speed now, it's been 12 years since I flew one, but the technique - well, I have done it, twice, and it works for all weights. That is something you don't forget)

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Don't you think it might be worth waiting for the evidence. The posts will look pretty silly if the finding is part of the tailplane fell off or something.

As for turnbacks, isn't it all related to aircraft performance? The PC-9 gets above it's glide speed pretty quickly on takeoff, secondly you have prebriefed ejection heights, 3rd the people authorised to do them practice them.

A final thought a old pilot told me in the 80's:

"Whenever you see a crash and think : How could he have done that". Just remember, with all his hours, all the instructors that have spent time with him, all the flight tests he has done, and all the advice from senior pilots - that's the decision he made on the day - so before you think badly about a pilots decision - just think , he's probably had the same or even better training than you". .. or words to that effect. Always good to reflect on.

[amos2]

Yeah, well,this is all fairly interesting,but there is an immutable aviation fact of life.
If you lose a donk in a single engine A/C...
don't turn back!!!!!

[Sqwark2000]

Glide speed for PA32 = 87kts !!!!

R.O.D in a straight glide with 6 Adult POB approx. 1500 fpm, add extra drag from a steep turn back manouver and the required change in attitude to maintain speed and you could easily exceed 2000 fpm.

From 500ft, that's 15 seconds to ground level.

S2K

[203]

thanks anos2 for stating what everyone else has said for the last 3 pages. Start a "turn-back" thread and leave this to the original topic.

[amos2]

...the original topic being?? :confused:

[KAOS]

How about we stop the #u#ken speculation, and wait to see what BASI comes up with?!!

A remarkable human being and good friend will be missed.

God's Speed!

[Centaurus]

Dragchute.

True. Winjeel at Point Cook - two fatal. Tiger Moth same place -one fatal. East Sale RAAF CFS - Vampire -two fatal.
UK - Hawk Jet trainer - two fatal.

Seems more risks in practicing than for real. The Vampire had an impeller failure shortly after take off and had a go at turning back but crashed short. Prior to that CFS had taught turn-backs during staff practice and on instructor courses. So it was understandable I guess that the pilot was primed for a turn back if something went wrong. Sad thing was that the fields ahead of the runway were relatively flat and the crew stood a reasonable chance of surviving a staright ahead forced landing.

Sometimes pilots make a split second decision when something catches them by surprise and despite all the previous warnings by their instructors from years back - they revert to basic survival mode of the safety of the runway that they have just left - only to turn back into a deadly minefield...

[Warren Rabbit]

If you read the comments of almost every poster who has commented over the last few pages, it's difficult to escape the conclusion that they all want to show off their knowledge. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing? Don't deny it, look back on your posts and tell me there is another motivation.

I used to live in the Whitsundays, I know the HM airfield intimately, and coincidentally I knew the pilot. To each one of you who has posted, I can only suggest you look within yourself as to your motivation for posting. When you have worked that out, think about how your post may affect the relatives of the pilot, then carry on within the dictates of your own conscience.

[Snakum]

Condolences to the families of all involved.

But since we're now debating turn-backs, and because I always try to use posts like this as a learning tool ...

I'd had it drilled into my head over and over like most students, and in the Winter of 2000 I almost had the opportunity to test my nerve. I was solo and prepping for my PPL checkride at a small strip (3800') out in the country, when on climbout ina C152 the engine starts puttering at about 800 AGL with nothing but trees straight ahead.

While hanger-flying with the guys we'd heard discussed many times that when faced with a deadstick into the trees the best course would be to stall it out just above and drop thru the woods. So, with my blood turning to ice-water (it was amazing how that saying was true) and my cheeks ripping at the vinyl seat I prepared to do just that. As it turns out, whatever started the roughness smoothed out and I high-tailed it back down.

But about six months later a CFI and a student faced the exact same thing and walked away (limped away, actually :D ) after stalling a C152 out and dropping thru the trees.

Has anyone else had experience with this? Are there better suggestions for going down in the woods? Could this have been done in a fully loaded PA-32?

Rev. Thich Minh Thong

[Torres]

Warren Rabbit.

I believe it was Gaunty that stated: "News and witness reports of an attempted return to land...". And I stated: "The media reports the engine "spluttered" and the aircraft turned back..."

That is not speculation; it is simply a statement of media report. Whether the media is correct or not, can and will only be confirmed or rebuked by the findings of the appropriate investigator, the ATSB.

I can not see any post in this thread which in any way confirms nor denigrates the pilot's actions nor prejudices or preempts the findings of the ATSB. As it should be.

But if one life is saved from a debate on turn back, that debate has not been in vain.

[GAMAN]

I have to agree with torres. While not appropriating blame a debate on the pitfalls/benefits of an EFATO turn-back can only help enlighten and educate.
I have every sympathy for the pilot and pax however we must be able to continuously educate ourselves through discussion of relevant topics.

[john_tullamarine]

Earlier in this thread Compressor Stall posted a link back to a thread started by Centaurus on turn backs ... definitely worth a look ... why not revive it and continue the specific discussion there ?

More interestingly, in that thread luftwaffle provided several links to papers on the subject. Unfortunately I haven't been able to link to one but the others I have pinched and included in the Tech Log URL sticky. These are a bit heavy in the going but well worth a read as the author is technically competent and the discussion is directed to a typical light aircraft.

While we need to observe all reasonable sensitivities after a fatal, it is not unreasonable to discuss hazards which might relate to sensible pilot decision making in the future, regardless of whether such discussions are, or are not, of relevance to the particular fatal.

[Short and Sweet]

My condolences too to the families. As a newly married wife (6 weeks) and having honeymooned on Hamilton Island I have such deep sympathy for young american widow. It really makes you want to grab your loved ones and let them know how much they mean to you and not let a day go by without getting the most out of it.

I may have missed the news report but has the pilot's name been released? I have a few friends that I have lost contact with and I am hoping that it is not one of them. They are of that age. If you would rather not post it here a personal email would be appreciated.

[Peter Doherty]

The name of the pilot has been released.

Andrew Morris, aged 27.

[Short and Sweet]

Thanks Peter. He wasn't any of the friends that I have lost contact with.

[Tool Time Two]

Dear S & S - what Dr. Lederer didn't say, was those three are at the same level, namely the top of the apex.:cool:

[TurboOtter]

Hey there Peter,
The name Andrew rings a bell but I can't remember from where.

Anyway to Andrew and his friends and family, my condolences, It makes me wake up and smell the roses that a fellow aviator meets the big boss up there. I have been in this business for a couple of years and seen for too many people go down for silly reasons. quite frankly my dear it scares the **** out of me, (I am not the brightest spark:p )

Please anybody reading this do not hold bad judgement to the pilot, for as anyone that has faced the grim reaper in flight will realise that looking back on the fact and finding faults in judgement will never change the fact of what has happened. Usually those people faced in the same situation would make not make any better decisions.

Once again, my thoughts are with Andrew and his family/friends

[429 CJ]

My apologies for dredging the thread up again, but I had stopped refferring to it after the "discussion" started. I only learned the identity of the pilot via a phonecall from a friend in Perth the day before yesterday........

In the short time that I knew Andrew (in KU), He came across as one of nature's true gentlemen. A quiet, un-assuming kind of person that many (including myself), could do well to emulate. His loss saddens me (as I am sure it does many family and friends), in a way that I find hard to actually grasp. I guess the surety that none of us are here forever gets rammed home with news such as this.

My thoughts go out to all of his family and friends, especially to those who knew him better than I.

RIP Andrew, may your passing become easier to bear for your loved ones in times ahead.

Best Regards,
Dave.

[Pseudonymn]

This is from ABC online:

Hamilton Island crash investigators focus on engine, propeller
Air safety investigators are focusing on the engine and propeller of a tourist commuter plane that crashed on Hamilton Island, in Queensland's Whitsundays, killing all six people on board.

Alan Stray from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has released a preliminary report into the tragedy that claimed a New Zealand family of four, an American tourist and the pilot on September 26.

Witnesses told investigators the engine of the Piper Cherokee Six was making an unusual noise before it crashed into a quarry.

Mr Stray says a detailed examination of the engine should be completed next week but admits the cause of the tragedy could remain a mystery.

"We will not speculate, we will only deal with facts," he said.

"If we don't have sufficient facts to bring down a definitive finding then we will say exactly that."


For those interested, the ATSB report can be found Here (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=442)

[Aussie FI 3A]

I knew and flew with the pilot killed on H.I. on several occasions. He was a live wire alright but not an idiot. He had a G2 IR and a fair bit of exp. Why did he turn back? I dont know but just consider the scenario for a second. Engine failure, first thing trained to do: Attempt Restart (Our flying school policy), If no go, then land ahead. So the engine dies, lose a few seconds just pannicking, then another 15 seconds trying to restart, all the while heading out to sea with 6 on board (including two kids) and only one door? I would have probably attempted a turn back too. I think he probably made his call in a knee jerk re-action. Terrible tragedy for sure, but lets not sit around and preach about EFATO drills and how "I would never do that", when very few of us have ever been in his shoes and had to make the call and ride out the consequences.

RIP Andrew Mate.
Hope the Surfs up wherever you are

[Chimbu chuckles]

OK I have been avoiding posting on this thread because,

1/. I didn't know the lad involved, and
2/. I didn't see him crash.

However I have seen people crash, have had a few engine failures myself over the years (1 self inflicted) and have forced landed singles where the damage ranged from 'pretty well rooted' through 'a few dings and a cowl flap ripped off' to 'not a scratch on the paintwork'.

I feel I'm qualified to comment in general terms.

Facts as we know them,

1/. The pilot departed in nice weather.
2/. The aircraft suffered some kind of 'problem'
3/. The pilot lost control and everyone was killed.

We actually need to know NOTHING else.

Point 3/. above is the kicker.

NOTHING short of a wing falling off is reason enough for this tradgedy....NOTHING!!!

FACT:

If a single engined aeroplane, indeed most aeroplanes, arrives on the ground under control then, in the vast, VAST majority of cases most or all of the occupants will survive, even going into tall timber or water or anything in between.

"He was a live wire/a true gentlemen" I'm certain!!
"He wasn't an idiot" I'm less certain.
"He was a GR2 Instructor" Means absolutely nothing.
"I would probably have attempted the turnback too". Then you most assuredly ARE an Idiot.

And I have done a turnback and survived..when I was VERY practiced at it and had briefed myself that that's what I would do in the particular circumstances I faced, in the particular aircraft I was in and only above my minimum height...before that it was the softest thing more or less straight ahead...on that day houses, trees and high tension power lines.

Of all the trite, meaningless little 'saying' this industry has spawned only one ever meant anything to me.

"A amatuer pilot is surprised when an engine fails but a professional is surprised when one doesn't"

And that has nothing to do with the type of licence held.

It's irrelevant what cause the power loss...because that didn't cause the loss of life...if he'd done NOTHING else except select full flap and trim for the correct speed and landed straight ahead in the water it's HIGHLY PROBABLE that all would have survived...how many doors in a Cherokee 6? 2 last I flew one...and they don't sink like a stone!

All you young pilots with dreams of QF who spend your days looking cool in your pilots uniform with lots of bars and lovely gold wings realise this;

If you accidentally depart controlled flight for ANY reason then you F**KED UP.

If you do it close to the ground you will probably DIE.

If you kill your aeroplane, yourself and your passengers it is YOUR FAULT!

And for the PC brigade, yes there are circumstances which are 'unrecoverable'....but only Test Pilots see them and not often these days.

The sad facts are;

1/. That Govt budget cuts have removed CASA's ability to monitor the industry.
2/. The ATO system is NO replacement for independant (read CASA) Examiners of Airman.
3/. The pink blowse set have whittled the curriculum down to the point where people are no longer learning to fly aeroplanes. Experienced 'Instructors' often can't really fly an aeroplane themselves.
4/. The first time you 'depart controlled flight' should not be on your own with pax on board...it should be at a safe height with a competent Teacher sitting beside you.

If this young man had recieved LOTS of training and exposure to unusual attitudes, aerobatics, spinning (Full spinning), Min speed manouvering...etc etc then perhaps he would have known enough to realise the inherent limitations of the aircraft he was in and not attempted anything silly. If he had been afforded the opportunity to 'depart controlled flight' a bunch of times during his training, and I include type specific training, then perhaps he would have recognised it before it took him by surprise!

How many others would that have saved too?

I absolutely KNOW it has saved my life. I thank god for my early instructors who went WAY beyond the minimum curriculum.

I thank the various C&T Pilots I flew with over my first several thousand hours bush flying who could show me how to fly various aircraft to the limits.

I lost 2 non pilot friends to a identical accident many years ago. I've lost many pilot friends since in a variety of way...VERY FEW were unavoidable.

If this young lad was your first friend...sorry but there will be more!

I don't feel terribly sad anymore(for the pilot, I do for the pax) when these tradegies happen...I feel angry!

Chuck.

[Spinnerhead]

Chuck

I am with you 100% on this one, the most sensible writings in this thread so far.

I too am sick of seeing others apologising for the screw ups of pilots, just so we don't hurt anyones delicate feelings.

When people get killed, feelings don't come into it any more, cold hard facts and observations do.

[Watchdog]

Chuck,

your points 1, 2 and 3 have no relevance to a pilot making a split-second decision in the heat of the moment, in this case the guy made the wrong one (as is just about always the case with a 'turn back'.)

Do you honestly think a regulator (good or pathetic as ours is) could have influenced this unfortunate fellas decision?

The only way we can reduce our exposure to accidents is to be proactive in safety as individual pilots and operators: go and practice in areas where we are vulnerable, in a simulator (as relevant) or aircraft (in controlled conditions.)
Have regular safety meetings with ALL operational staff and make it policy.
It's a costly and time consuming procedure sure, but whatever the business it's still "Threat Management"

ie: if this occurs at this point we will do this, if it occurs after that we will do that. Make the plan early, prove to staff that what you plan works or doesn't work at certain points and make it gospel. Make the individuals decision so he doesn't have to make a fatal one at the heat of the moment..... just like the ol' "V1".

I know it sounds all theortical but it isn't if you really think about it. You'd fit most of it on an A4 piece of paper. eg. Title PA31 Policy CNS-TSV.

[gaunty]

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can be added to or subtracted from Chuckles post that would make it any more or more, I say again more, effective and profoundly wise advice.


3/. The pilot lost control and everyone was killed.

We actually need to know NOTHING else.

Point 3/. above is the kicker.

NOTHING short of a wing falling off is reason enough for this tradgedy....NOTHING!!!

[Chimbu chuckles]

Watchdog,

Because I found your post so profoundly disturbing I'm going to do what I rarely do on this forum these days...I'm going to give you BOTH BARRELS...BOHICA Watchdog:D

Quote:

"your points 1, 2 and 3 have no relevance to a pilot making a split-second decision in the heat of the moment, in this case the guy made the wrong one (as is just about always the case with a 'turn back'.)"

How does that work again?

A young pilot takes off with paying pax on a nice day with nothing more terrifying than some warm water in front of him and that's enough to force him into a 'heat of the moment' decision which causes him to go against everything he has, presumably, been taught since day one!

I say 'presumably' because if there is one thing that gets hammered in EFATO training it's 'don't turn back'.

Quote:

"Do you honestly think a regulator (good or pathetic as ours is) could have influenced this unfortunate fellas decision? "

MAN DO I:rolleyes:

Our regulator has been gutted by successive budget cuts for YEARS. The result is

1/. many good people leave in disgust and dissapointment,
2/.many losers get jobs who would not have otherwise
3/. the good guys who remain are hamstrung in their efforts by the losers, who in my experience have a disturbingly uncanny ability to 'get ahead' into non flying management while the good guys just 'wanna drive aeroplanes and help people improve'.

As a direct result systems like the ATO system pop up to fill the void left by the regulator. This system has individuals who rely on there 'popularity' with 'Flying Schools' for their living. If they demand too high a standard they just don't get called very much and hence don't make a very good living.

I have a friend who is a VERY experienced pilot who is an ATO. He tells me this IS going on all the time...luckily for him he's only a few months away from retirement and it doesn't particularly worry him that he's not being called by some of the companies in his area...it's allowing him to wind down...he's GIVEN UP trying to make a difference!!!

Flying schools the length and breadth of Australia have stopped trying to teach people to 'fly' and are these days teaching them to be 'Airline Pilots'.

With the exception of schools involved in closely monitored airline cadetships they wouldn't have the remotest idea what that actually means! So we have 'Instructors' and 'Future Airline Pilots' strutting around in flash uniforms and a curriculum which has moved far away from teaching people to fly an aeroplane and instead is heavily biased towards 'Procedural aircraft systems management'.

And TOSSERS like Toller think this is a GOOD THING:eek:

The number of stories I hear of 'Instructors' demanding their students do completely stupid things in non transport category aircraft because "That's the way the airlines do it" is truly scary!

And yet the number of young pilots these days who have very little to no idea what will happen next if they do X with the controls in Y circumstances is growing.

I've seen it over and over while conducting C&T in both piston twins and laterly a Corporate jet.

I had a guy once who could NOT fly a visual circuit in an Islander but could fly the gauges beautifully...that's all that mattered to him...he was besotted with any picture of a jet glass cockpit. I covered over all his instruments and made him fly 16 sectors to various bush strips with nothing but RPM and a bubble compass..The improvement was immediate so I signed him off (after a severe talking at!)and as he never had a crash in PNG I suppose it worked...he's now a 737 800NG captain at a certain low cost airline:D and from what I hear still times downwind to work out where to turn base:(

A young pilot I knew slightly took off from a NT strip in a C210 in 2000 and pulled straight up into a wing over to return and 'beat up' his watching pilot mates...he didn't make it half way round the 'turn' before losing control and spudding in...DEAD!

A young Kiwi ex Instructor(1500 hours) crashed my C185 back in 92 after departing Port Moresby with a CofG that, when we later plotted it, barely stayed on the page let alone the graph. His 'CP' had sent him off alone after 4 days in PNG and, predictably, he got lost and flew up the wrong valley. When he got to the dead end he attempted a steep turn to exit, stalled, and spun in killing everyone on board. I was the first person to reach the crash site...he didn't even knock any branches off as his path through the jungle canopy was so verticle...the horizontal stab was wound FULL nose down and zero flaps were set for the turn.

You ever seen dead people at a crash site Watchdog?

Tell me these pilots had any idea what the most likely outcome of their actions was going to be?

I could give you 10 or 15 more examples of pilots who should not have held a licence or at best who's woefull knowledge of aerodynamic cause and effect was the result of the system we have in place now.

I could also give a handfull cases where my own lack of judgement when I was very inexperienced led me into situations in C185s in the PNG Central Highlands where I was about to either DIE or badly damage an aircraft. What saved my bacon on those occassions was KNOWING how to MAX PERFORM the aircraft without LOSNG CONTROL and not GIVING UP...and GOD protects wise men and fools:D

Quote:

"The only way we can reduce our exposure to accidents is to be proactive in safety as individual pilots and operators: go and practice in areas where we are vulnerable, in a simulator (as relevant) or aircraft (in controlled conditions.)
Have regular safety meetings with ALL operational staff and make it policy.
It's a costly and time consuming procedure sure, but whatever the business it's still "Threat Management"

ie: if this occurs at this point we will do this, if it occurs after that we will do that. Make the plan early, prove to staff that what you plan works or doesn't work at certain points and make it gospel. Make the individuals decision so he doesn't have to make a fatal one at the heat of the moment..... just like the ol' "V1"."

Man you wouldn't believe the involuntary gag reflex people who use words like 'Proactive' and 'Risk management' and 'Threat management" give me.

To date virtually everyone I EVER met who talks in 'Buzz Phrases' like the above knew ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the subject.

And your answer is to sit everyone down and give them a 'survive by the numbers' approach.

"Make the individuals decision so he doesn't have to make a fatal one at the heat of the moment...just like the ol' V1"

Man you are part of the PROBLEM:mad:

I could be wrong but all your last paragraph tells me is that ALL YOU'VE GOT is THEORY.

A CASA FOI I was talking to recently (very experienced before succumbing to CASA:rolleyes: ) told me about asking a CFI at a big school to brief and demonstrate Min Radius/Max Rate turns as part of his renewal.

He had to go away and research the subject and almost got it right on the day..to his credit it is now his favorite way of testing people...it's his thing!!

Another Chief Pilot I was told about by an Examiner when asked to demonstrate a Min radius/Max rate turn set flaps 20, reduced power to 18inches and crept around the turn at 30 degrees AOB!!

One of my LEAST favorite 'sayings' is;

"A superior pilot uses his superior knowledge to avoid having to use his superior skills".

Well guess what Watchdog...You've got to have one or the other AT LEAST...what this industry seems to be producing is pilots with NIETHER.

Chuck.

PS Jesus wept...rant mode disbabled:D

[Icarus2001]

Watchdog

no relevance to a pilot making a split-second decision in the heat of the moment, in this case the guy made the wrong one (as is just about

It is not a split second decision. It is made calmly and s l o w l y at the holding point, or during the pre-flight or whilst sitting around waiting for the passengers to return instead of reading w*nker mags. The what if... is the best protection a pilot has. Pre-take off safety brief, pre-instrument approach brief etc.

The point is to remove any split-second decision. The pilot should and must know what he or she will do if A or B or C happens.

[GAMAN]

I feel the need to wade in here.
I agree with EVERYTHING Chimbu has to say about this.

Watchdog.
"Do you honestly think a regulator (good or pathetic as ours is) could have influenced this unfortunate fellas decision?"

Yes!!!
All the way through my training I fought to get more experienced instructors to teach me, and now having a fair bit of experience in GA and coincidentally Cherokee 6's the standard of training has been a pet hate. I didn't realise how woefully inadequate my training was until I started flying Air Transport ops with a bare CPL and MEIFR.
The regulator has all the ability in the world to set the standards for training through the syllabus and the standards for flight examining staff.
Something has to be done about the state of aviation training.
Does anyone out there think it is an ideal situation for a 350hr instructor to be teaching a student who will then go on to be a 350hr instructor and so on....

[429 CJ]

When people get killed, feelings don't come into it any more, cold hard facts and observations do.

Man, I hope for your sake that you never lose a friend or an aquaintence to an aviation related accident. http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/knob.gif

[Mainframe]

Chimbu Mate, I too have to agree with everything you have said in this topic. In my 30 years in this business I have seen declining standards and many pilots move on to the upper flight levels, a few friends included.

I have survived several incidents that have been fatal to others, thanks to the quality of training and the experience of those that helped mould me in my formative years.

You and I probably remember Fred Knudsen and other DCA legends who helped us on our way and instilled a healthy approach to aviating.

There are still a few newer legends out there carrying on the tradition, but hamstrung by their peers in CASA, the beaurocrats and others who have infiltrated the system.

As for ATO's don't write them off, there are some great guys out there, some of whom have been in CASA and got out so they can do their safety job better, some who have been canvassed by CASA and declined. ( Mr Toller, it is a sad fact that good staff still leave in droves despite a salary twice that of the industry, what's wrong inside CASA ? Too much of a club ? )

In S/E Qld, you won't beat John Appleby and Lester Neideck, Mike Jones further north, Rocco in TSV, Bob Harris Innisfail and David Kilin in Cairns. The industry is fortunate to have people of this calibre, and I'm sure the other states have their quiet achievers who do not compromise standards to ingratiate themselves with those who seek the easy way to a rating.

Check and training, even in a small charter company can go a long way to reduce the senseless and repetitive accident rate.

I too get angry at every senseless and needless fatality.

We don't need it, and we, the industry, without CASA, can reduce it by not accepting the minimum standards that the sausage factories turn out for us to correct.

An initial check to line should probe and explore the safe envelope of each and every type the new employee will fly, the stall characteristics, the EFATO drill, the engine failure in cruise followed by the forced landing.

We also need to reinforce the moments pause before takeoff, when we can program the subconscious to perform the required vital actions until the conscious mind can resume control.

There are no split second decisions to make, for each and every takeoff the pilot should preconsider the "in the event of" "I will xxx". This must be done at the threshold, just prior to opening the throttle, not half heartedly chanting a meaningless mantra while backtracking.

Know the possible scenarios for each takeoff and each phase of flight and know before hand what your intentions will be, then tell your subconscious this is what you are going to do.

I am here writing this as a result of being taught to do just that. I have seen my own hands moving, securing a failed and shattered engine on a twin in heavy imc, while I watched in shock, slowly catching up to what was actually happening and taking over from the subconscious as soon as I was able.

The severe shock of the unexpected can be overcome by this simple expedient.


Mostly our job is hours and hours of the predictable, and is as a result, sometimes numbingly boring.

We are really paid for the few seconds of fright and the correct response to the emergency that presents itself.

Excepting structual damage or airframe failure, a large proportion of emergencies can be dealt with and a survivable outcome is usually possible.

A 180 degree turn at rate one takes one minute. If you are descending at 700 fpm and you are at 300', what's the point of not accepting that you CAN'T turn back before you impact ?
What is difficult about this concept?

You must configure the aircraft for the inevitable return to the surface at an airspeed and vertical speed that gives you a chance of survival. This is surely taught, and must be followed.

[Chimbu chuckles]

CJ I very much doubt spinnerhead meant it unkindly.

When you have lost a few more friends...and you will...you may see it in a different light.

I hope you never see the numbers I have...if I include non aircrew friends and people I may have only flown with once, like the fella who issued me with my IR, who died with one of my early instuctors when their CAA Bonanza had a midair with a glider, and pilots from competing companies who I may only have spent time with at the aeroclub or yachty or a "How's your end of the funny farm?" when our paths crossed at some mountain strip it's up over 40!!!

If you just include people I considered really good mates it's still over 20!

After 4 in my first year in PNG I started to harden up...at some point after that I just got very pissed off every time.

Several days after pulling the bodies out of my own aeroplane, during which good people were telling my wife to watch me because I seemed to show no emotion whatsoever I lost it and broke down crying...because of that young dead pilot? No he was an idiot!

Because I had lifted out of the crumpled fuselage the tiny bodies of two children, 1 boy and 1 girl, both about my daughters age at the time...3 or 4...and carried them to the bush helipad and zipped them into the same body bag.

That's why I get worked up about this stuff.


Chuck.

PS Mainframe I certainly know there are some bloody good ATOs out there...but the system is still flawed and needs to change back to a more hands on approach from the regulator...perhaps CASA should, upon receipt of a request for an flight test, decide from a short list, which ATO will conduct the test.

At least that would stop the shopping around that goes on!

[Watchdog]

Chimbu,

Read my lips: you can teach/scream/yell all you like throughout someones training and they MAY STILL do something strange/stupid. You can regulate all you like but human nature usually "in the heat of the moment" win.
So tell me, the guy that you "signed off" years ago, and now he's a 737 CP, you sure he will always make the right call at the right time for the rest of his life because you witnessed it one day during a test. Yeah right.

So tell me again just how our regulators can determine that?

"A young pilot takes off with paying pax on a nice day with nothing more terrifying than some warm water in front of him and that's enough to force him into a 'heat of the moment' decision which causes him to go against everything he has, presumably, been taught since day one"

...what's this got to do with my post?....I am not referring specifically to this accident. You have misread my reply, I agree with the majority of your points but you can't come out and say it occurred because of a lack of regulatory survellience.


Icarus,
we are in agreeance - read the 2nd line, 4th paragraph on my previous post.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Watchdog,

I rarely yell and never scream...I like to think I can teach when given the opportunity and a willing student...on my better days the student doesn't even need to be that willing..although I have run into one that was a dead loss so having passed him around the other training captains I sacked him...and rang CASA...who did nothing next time he renewed his Instructor Rating...last I heard he was still 'teaching'...I shudder to think what.

Human nature usually wins...I disagree...if you can train soldiers to move forward while being shot at and kill just because there Govt says to I'm bloody sure you can train people to fly an airplane safely under any circumstances they are likely to encounter and give them skills to manage the less likely as best as is possible.

I'm equally certain that telling the average 18 year old lad not to do beat ups or try and turn back after an engine failure because it's illegal or he might be killed won't work either...it didn't with me.

But if you really train them well you might cause the more circumspect to pause and not do it and you might cause the less circumspect to do it in such a way that they will not kill themselves.

In PNG it was always about keep new guys alive long enough for them to build experience and judgement. I don't see a flying school has any different imperative.

That was the way my first CPs and C&Ter treated me when I turned up and it seemed to work...I always seemed to have just enough experience and manipulative skills to stay alive in the first few years.

The guy I 'signed off' learned a big lesson during that final period of line training. We were working in a well established company with a strong C&T cadre. Some months later he was upgraded to C402, then 404 then Twin Otter. Each time was a comprehensive endorsement and 15 to 30 odd hours ICUS. Now he works for a company which also has a strong C&T Department, I know many of the checkies, with 6 monthly sim checks. He might not be one of my favorite people and he may not be the best pilot I ever flew with but he is having a successful career.

You don't think 16 odd sectors in and out of PNG bush strips with everything covered over was a reasonable test?

I should have put him on an aeroplane back to Oz? You wouldn't believe how close to that point it got...but I didn't and that was a judgement call...I've never lost a minutes sleep worrying about anybody I trained and signed off.

I can't gaurantee I will make the right decision every time for the rest of my career, let alone anyone elses....but the more I practice the luckier I get so here's hoping!

All I can do is my very best with the pilots I train or check while they are under my 'umbrella'...when they go to work someplace else or to fly another type they become someone elses responsibility until such time that they become a checker or trainer or a Chief Pilot...then I hope they remember my good days and my bad ones and pass on the lessons learned from both.

I don't believe I mentioned Regulatory Surveilance anywhere in my posts....nor am I nieve enough to subscribe to theories of zero accident rates. What I do believe pashionately is that the average standards of PPL and CPL graduates is abysmal and not getting any better.

We've certainly got more than enough REGULATIONS.

There is nothing much wrong with ATC and Airspace, despite what Mr. Smith and Smith tell us.

What is DESPERATELY needed is overhaul of the pilots licence curriculae...a return to more traditional skills with an emphasis on handling skills and understanding of aerodynamic cause and effect.

The Regulators are fiddling while Rome burns!

Airlines are the place to learn airline SOPs not flying schools.

A Transport Cat aeroplane or Sim is the place to learn about Multi crew SOPs...not a Duchess, Baron or an Aerostar.

I would love to see all piston twin training happen mostly in a Sim that's the equivalent of the best airline sims...don't know that it will happen though.

CASA are forever coming out with warm fuzzy buzzword rhetoric about increasing air safety and maintaining high standards...but they virtually never do anything that will ACTUALLY go someway towards attaining that.

I believe the basic CPL is probably one of the easiest to obtain professional qualifications around...all it requires is a year 10 education and deep pockets. It should be made a helluva lot harder...not more expensive and not more hours to qualify..200 should be adequate for a basic CPL...it's what you do with those 200 hours that can have the greatest impact on the accident statistics.

I believe if that was done, via overhauled curriculae and tougher standards in testing we could probably reduce the really stupid fatal accidents by 1/2...not a bad start really!

Ohh and I can't read your lips...this is a BB not TV:D

If I upset you with my response to your post, learn to live with it...I have:p :D

Chuck.

[gaunty]

Watchdog

We are probably in heated agreement, as I have had the privilege to have survived regulatory regimes from as far back as the early sixties (my student pilot license says 1962 in fact, with a photo of an impossibly young child, I barely recognise on the inside cover).

I have seen it all from it's gold plated glory to the puny claytons effort we know suffer in the politically debased cause of "user pays".

East the Beast for example, God love him, terrorised, to put it mildly, his bailiwick. But he actually knew of what he spoke. A "quiet chat" about the possible consequences of your "indiscretion", left you in no doubt whatsoever of the present limits of your skills and knowledge.
But it was delivered from the lofty heights of actual experience and REAL surveillance.
To fruitfully answer simple questions the like of, "how come your identically equipped and same MT weight Navajo can carry 200 lbs more over the same distance as your competitor" required a skill and dexterity mastered by very few if any.

If, when you taxied in and 'Uncle Bob' or 'Rantin Ron' were waiting and you weren't at least 99% kosher, it was unlikely that there would be a warm fuzzy 'counselling'.
They and everybody understood the rules, so there was no "interpretation" necessary or "sought", you just handed over your license.
Whats so hard or unreasonable about that.

Operational Control and regulatory Flight Plan post flight audit and surveillance, sounds a bit fascist now, but it kept everybody honest and sorted the dodgy bros out from the real ones with real time checking of payload range, flight times and duty hours.

The word "privilege" was much bandied about in relation to the activities you were allowed to conduct and as conferred upon you in relation to your license.
Ponder the meaning of the word "license" in its fullest sense and the "privilege" and "responsibility" it allowed and required.

Fast forward to 20 years later mid 80's when as the local Cessna bloke I field a call from the senior FOI asking if it was possible to carry 9 POB, 20kg baggage EACH, fitters toolbox (40Kg) Newman -Perth with IFR reserves with 'x' amount of fuel in the tanks in a particular Cessna 421C.
My short answer was that apart from being somewhat overweight at TO it would probably be into the fixed reserves by Mount Singleton (about 45 minutes out) and likely be running on air by short finals, why do you ask?
"Well its on the ground after a wheels up at Perth AP and reported engine failure/s on short and short short finals." There was a bit more to it all but that's the guts of it.
All flight planned using their regulatory approved company "Operations Manual".
The company, fortunately for all went broke, but had won the contract, with the regulatory approved Ops Manual as its' authority, against the kosher ones, who insisted on a fuel stop at Meeka or reduced payload.
Their also regulatory approved Ops Manuals had a quite different but correct set of numbers.
Needless to say the operator and crew got a "free spin" pass.

I have seen no evidence to suggest it has gotten any better.

My point being?
you can't come out and say it occurred because of a lack of regulatory survellience.

OH yes I/we can.!

Its not the lack of but the quality of the surveillance that counts.

We are in that most dangerous of all times when ALL of the so called experience out there that "youngsters" rely on, and how otherwise would they know, is of the what I have come to call the "Prince of Wales Syndrome".

"I danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced with the Prince of Wales".

Six Degrees of Separation, heck try about Twenty and you might be getting close.

My question would be how many degrees of separation were there between this pilot and somebody who actually knew of what he was talking about.

It used to be that the regulator had it's share of the cream and for the most part you could get a reasonable rendition of "the word".

Now I suspect for the most part it's the old blind talking to the deaf routine.

As Chucks avers, I know there are some truly professional FOIs out there, but how do those that dont know the difference know the difference?

[Neddy]

To anybody ( including but not limited to Watchdog) who does not believe/understand the sorry state of training, surveilance and regulatory buffoonary within the industry I recommend a thorough read of the ATSB report into the C310 crash at Newman WA. which was released last week.

Like that one there are many, many, many accidents just waiting to happen while the responsible regulatory and government organisations pander to the politically influential and aeronautically challenged. Aviation and more specifically training in Australia has become a dangerous joke!

[KAOS]

Chimbu Chuckles

You Quote:

"NOTHING short of a wing falling off is reason enough for this tradgedy....NOTHING!!!"

"If you kill your aeroplane, yourself and your passengers it is your fault"

What a load of ****! You don't have much faith in pilots do you?
How about some sort of mechanical failure? Broken control cable, jammed elevator e.t.c
I think a job with the ATSB, CASA or the tabloids might suit you better.

Only the pilot at the controls of the aircraft and God, know the whole story. So, stop speculating and for gods sake, stop playing the Martyr!:(

[Chimbu chuckles]

Oh...OK:rolleyes:

Chuck