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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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..."
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.
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!!)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
) 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. 
