I'm with Checkboard. Have lost twice that number of colleagues that I have worked with - the last one in Bonaire last year. Without Prune I wouldn't have known of it. So far away I couldn't even begin to speculate on it, but that doesn't make the feeling of sadness at the cutting short a promising career any less. May never get to read the Official report into that one either. After watching the petty feeding frenzy of speculation over the Norfolk accident, thankfully without fatality, all I need to add is for people to be responsible and balanced in their views if they are to contribute.
All these people talking about how they shouldnt have been doing training in the aircraft should read the regs again.
It is perfectly legal and unfortunately sometimes things go wrong, I for one am not commenting on the cause, any one that does is an idiot because at this point there is no way of having any idea to even make an educated guess on what happened.
All I, and a lot of other posts are saying are that these guys were good at there job and were great guys. anything more than that is guess work.
if people want to have a shot at operators for doing training in aircraft they should be aiming there attention at the regulators rather than the operators who are just following the rules.
yes I am upset, as everyone that lost a mate today is, at the end of the day speculate all you like but wait till we have some idea of what happened before judging people that were merely following the regulations and procedures that have been used for years.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out what probably happened. Whatever the report concludes in a couple of years time, there are already valuable lessons to be learned.
When there is an accident, there are generally two causes - either the aircraft broke, or the pilot(s) made an error. Sometimes, a crash happens because the aircraft broke and the crew subsequently made error... swiss cheese and all that.
Most of you that knew one of the pilots are clearly in denial that your mate could possibly have made an error. Fine, but recognise that for what it is, a purely emotional response, not an analytical (or professional) one.
What a daft contradition - is the suggestion that in this prang that the aircraft could of broke but that the pilot is to blame... just what a grieving mother needs to hear...
The "valuable lessons" will be found by the crash investigators not by some muppet posters on PPRuNe.
Why don't we give the guys the benefit of the doubt.
Speculation is not fact's. We all like specuation because it gives us something to talk about. But who does it hurt?
To Tidbinbilla, what i'm arguing here is the people who don't give the facts, they're happy to speculate online here and 'learn something' which there is no factual evidence for (go above and beyond an aircraft crashing). It's not a condolence thread, just a thread where people want to post something nice about someone unfortunate. What's the problem with that?
What a daft contradition - is the suggestion that in this prang that the aircraft could of broke but that the pilot is to blame... just what a grieving mother needs to hear..
No... it is general statement that applies all accidents. It happens to be true as well - sorry if that bursts your bubble.
Tell me this - if an aircraft, certified for RPT as you call it over there, has an EFATO and the crew mis-handle it and crash - who is to blame? As the aircraft clearly has the performance to handle the engine-out, the responsibility rests with the crew, does it not?
I am not addressing a grieving mother, I am addressing a Professional Pilots forum. Try and keep your emotions under control.
The "valuable lessons" will be found by the crash investigators not by some muppet posters on PPRuNe.
Sure. Check back with me in a couple of years... until then, those of us with half a brain will draw our own conclusions...
"Sure. Check back with me in a couple of years... until then, those of us with half a brain will draw our own conclusions... "
Are you speculating that this happened to this crew? You may have half a brain and look very stupid if it turns out otherwise. People that draw their own conclusions based on the very limited facts they have turn out to be very ignorant. How do you it wasn't caused by some other reason out of the crew control? Is this how a professional pilot should think, therefore act on his/her own flight management? I don't think so. We learn from facts that have been thorougly investigated and experienced by our peers, and then apply what we've leared. It doesn't come from speculation over a few beers.
Ok I'm sorry but I'm having a nibble. We all know what was probably happening up the front of said Braz (following the letter of the our esteemed regulators law...) Fact: ANB was on a training flight Fact: 2 POB (only pilots onboard) Fact: the Emb120 sim in Tullamarine is available (I'm happy to be stand corrected... is it U/S?) for ballpark (I'm aware of the pricing) $750 per hour; JQ DRW-MEL return $400? And a night at the 'Not so Quality Inn' $90 (....all facts)... Why why why why why why... whyyyy do operators continue assy training in the aircraft when a SAFE alternative is available? No judgement to AN at all, it's legal still, right? Wasn't anything learnt from the Brasilia incident at Skippers (god bless 170% Tq hey?) I know the ATSB forwarded said final report to all Oz Emb120 operators.
And why x 1000 does this industry insist on savings today, giant sink holes tomorrow. I've just left an operator (RPT) who insisted on savings over safety time and time again.... You may have saved a few thousand $ today, but at what price? An airfame An insurance premium Your reputation And innocent lives.... Simply complying to the regs. To CASA.... Shame on you and your beaurocratic bullshi* Will this be another Tamworth? I hope so, I just wish at not this cost....
Last edited by beaver_rotate; 22nd Mar 2010 at 15:10.
People that draw their own conclusions based on the very limited facts they have turn out to be very ignorant.
Leaving aside the incomprehensible grammar, let's look at this objectively.
I can only think of four likely causes. We'll leave weather out of it as it doesn't appear to have been a factor.
1. It was a post-maintenance test flight and something went catastrophically wrong.
2. It was a training flight, and the trainee mishandled a simulated emergency and the check pilot couldn't recover in time.
3. It was a training flight, and there was a real emergency that neither pilot could recover from.
4. It was a training flight, and there was a catastrophic failure that neither pilot could recover from.
The only scenario that puts the crew beyond blame is the sudden, catastrophic failure. Anything else should be able to be handled in this class of aircraft, particularly as it would have been very light. If it does turn out to be a mishandled simulated emergency (which I think it will, but don't know for sure), the question becomes why were they doing it at a dangerous height? Have we really not learned from the many other accidents of this nature?
Should we turn our brains off and wait for the report? Well, you can if you like. It is hardly a professional thing to do, but whatever floats your boat.
In my experience, these things usually turn out to be pretty much what they look like. It's a bit like investigating an accident where an aircraft has run out of fuel (and there have been plenty). The report will take a year to come out, but it will simply conclude that the aircraft ran out of fuel, a conclusion that should be blindingly obvious to anyone who can form coherent sentences. Do you really need the report to come to that conclusion? Well, you might, but I don't.
One of the persistent problems in aviation is the refusal of pilots to objectively evaluate the role of their colleagues in accidents. It is a form of denial that is more prevalent in GA than the airlines, because the airlines get it and try and train it out of their crews via Human Factors training.
It is not a pleasant thing to consider that a friend and colleague may have messed up, but a professional pilot will make an informed judgement and move on. It's how we prevent ourselves from repeating the mistakes of others. The report just confirms what we (should) already know.
I'm sure the grammer is comprehensible. You know what i'm saying.
Look, remoak, you may be right but then you maybe wrong. A professional pilot will not make An ASs out of UMand ME (ASSUME) but will get the facts and make a decision based on those facts. ATSB will also do this. If they can't come to a definitive conclusion, they won't say they suspect improper training caused it in the investigation.
Remoak says "It is not a pleasant thing to consider that a friend and colleague may have messed up, but a professional pilot will make an informed judgement and move on. It's how we prevent ourselves from repeating the mistakes of others. The report just confirms what we (should) already know."
Do you have all the facts? No, becasue you are not an ATSB representative studying the case. You have come to a preconceived idea based upon what you have heard. Just give the family and the guys reputations the dignity and respect and wait for the factual report.
We learn stuff in human factors that has been evaluated and proven by the ATSB and relevant authorites using research and FACT. It is fair to talk about why training is done in an aircraft of this capacity just don't blame the guys until investigation is done.
News limited is a rumour network, specifically for idiots to report and comment on events on nothing.
Fixed for accuracy.
What is "allowed" in this thread, no condolences, no speculation, no mentioning pilots involved, no mentioning facts due to prying eyes. Short of what's been posted why is this thread open. You've said no to all possible replies. Close the thread and mods to post all "factual" updates. In fact while you're at it ban all replies to all threads.
I'm not encouraging idiots without a clue to post but please realise, this is a public forum where everyone has the right to give their piece.
Main Entry: fo·rum Pronunciation: \ˈfȯr-əm\ Function: noun 1. ... b: a public meeting place for open discussion...
How can you make an informed judgement based upon speculation? Do you have all the facts? No, becasue you are not an ATSB representative studying the case. You may merely make a decision based upon what you have heard.
The facts, as I understand it, and as reported by the police, are:
- The aircraft departed on a training flight.
- Shortly after rotation, the aircraft banked steeply to the left and impacted the runway.
Now please tell me what you think caused it.
You may not be able to add two and two, but most of the rest of us can.
Now I am perfectly happy to be proved wrong, and in some ways I hope I am, but for now the most likely cause of this accident is pretty obvious. There is clearly a loss of control - but what caused it? It doesn't appear to be the weather, so what else? You only have two options - catastrophic mechanical failure, or crew error. Take your pick. Of course, if you can think of a third (or fourth) possibility, by all means correct me.
You don't have to be an ATSB representative, who by the way will also indulge in speculation where all the facts aren't known, to figure that out.
You have also missed the bigger picture, the human picture on how to be compassionate and noble in the face of grief.
That is not the bigger picture. Whilst some of you will no doubt want to wallow in overblown sentiments of dignity in the face of grief, I am pretty sure that the two pilots involved would be amongst the first to say get over it, figure it out, make sure it doesn't happen again. THAT is the bigger picture.
Gentlemen, to blame CASA for the legislation which permits crew training to be done in aircraft when a simulator is available, as several posters to this thread have done, is to miss the point.
The legislation is the minimum acceptable standard to which any organisation is required to meet. It does not prevent an organisation from setting higher standards.
QANTAS, Virgin Blue, JetStar at al could all train and endorse in the aircraft should they so desire but for a variety of reasons, including safety, they choose to use a simulator. Perhaps it is time for operators to review their training standards in the light of this most unfortunate crash.
This site is named PPRuNe, Professional Pilots' Rumour Network
If it was named PPFN, Professional Pilots' Fact network, I could then understand the positions a few take, but until that name change, I don't.
I do understand the emotions involved, but as you, or possiby someone else,said above, is there any point in an anonymous poster pouring out his emotions on a forum where more anonymous people read them?? Probably not.
I probably didn't know either pilot, but I did work for the organization some years ago, and follow the company's progress with interest.
Incidentally, I also see only two scenarios, or combination thereof.
When was the last time you guys read an accident report and thought "Well, THAT's a new way to crash an aeroplane!"
When was the last time you read an accident report and, within the first few paras, didn't know what comes next?
...and have any of you read Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff"? If not, I suggest you do so. It was SOP for Chuck Yeager and his contempories to kick around the circumstances of every crash and every fatality.