Plane missing en route YCAB?
Isn't that why the PIFR was introduced so that PPL's could get an instrument rating that wasn't going to be expensive or currency dependent?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right Captain.
But back in 1985, when i wanted to get a CIR in a single, I was almost laughed at...............CIR's were only for real pilots that flew twins.
I also saw many pilots lining up for renewals in twins that couldn't afford to fly them between renewals and were that far behind the aircraft, that I stuck with my single rating, since that's what I flew. and reckoned I was a lot safer.
At that time the CIR was a hard slog, and particularly the theory was designed to discourage all but the totally committed - there were several I knew that did much of the flying, couldn't be bothered with the theory, and blasted off nonetheless into IFR. Idiots of course, but they had no other option than the full CIR theory course to obtain any kind of instrument rating.
I got the rating for my private/business flying safety and kept it current for 20 years. My flying these days is VFR. I have a PIFR but would never use it in anger without getting current, and a check ride.
I reckon the PIFR is a good thing........the intent behind it is good...........but it's not pushed by the schools, probably because most of the newbie instructors reckon it's for wimps.
Would be interesting to see the stats for PIFR's issued compared to CIR's.
Either of these ratings will reinforce the value of recency to remain safe.
PIFR is a damn sight better than 3 hrs IF for a private licence.
But back in 1985, when i wanted to get a CIR in a single, I was almost laughed at...............CIR's were only for real pilots that flew twins.
I also saw many pilots lining up for renewals in twins that couldn't afford to fly them between renewals and were that far behind the aircraft, that I stuck with my single rating, since that's what I flew. and reckoned I was a lot safer.
At that time the CIR was a hard slog, and particularly the theory was designed to discourage all but the totally committed - there were several I knew that did much of the flying, couldn't be bothered with the theory, and blasted off nonetheless into IFR. Idiots of course, but they had no other option than the full CIR theory course to obtain any kind of instrument rating.
I got the rating for my private/business flying safety and kept it current for 20 years. My flying these days is VFR. I have a PIFR but would never use it in anger without getting current, and a check ride.
I reckon the PIFR is a good thing........the intent behind it is good...........but it's not pushed by the schools, probably because most of the newbie instructors reckon it's for wimps.
Would be interesting to see the stats for PIFR's issued compared to CIR's.
Either of these ratings will reinforce the value of recency to remain safe.
PIFR is a damn sight better than 3 hrs IF for a private licence.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
And to get my CIR current again, with a PIFR and PVT ops....I can.
Flying to CIR standards is the end game, but at times with good weather, is a bit harder, and a month or so may not make that much difference.
I set higher personal standards than some, and a CIR renewal is one way of doing so.
If you have to ask....you would not understand.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon the PIFR is a good thing........the intent behind it is good...........but it's not pushed by the schools, probably because most of the newbie instructors reckon it's for wimps.
I find the hurdle that puts a lot of folk off is also the exam and obtaining decent ground training without just being left with Thom or Tait to entertain yourself night after night. Self study is not an easy way to motivate youself. There just is no the demand for viable class sizes in most schools. Some schools are insisting on the IREX, even for PIFR, which is a massive overkill in my view.
It's really not that difficult for a VFR PPL to learn and maintain a skill to keep their aeroplane the right way up in cloud for an emergency situation and be able to climb to a safe height where they can get some help. But they have to be first motivated and taught to do that. I'm not suggesting they could be shooting ILSs down to minima every trip of course... But the worst thing we can do when we have inadvertently strayed into the poo and its down below the hill tops is be in amongst it, desperately trying to stay visual. Yes, VFR pilots do need to learn to stay well away from that situation, but when we get 'sucked in', perhaps by get-home-itis or a unforecast weather situation, there are very few options other than hoping on a wing and a prayer that we can stay visual. In too many cases, that continues to prove impossible.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
had about 1 hour’s endurance.10 At about 1357 the pilot of the SAR helicopter requested via relay
through the pilot of another aircraft that the pilot of UXG change from 129.0 MHz to 121.5 MHz.
The pilot of UXG reportedly confirmed the frequency change and the crew of a commercial flight
later reported to ATC that they had received a transmission from UXG on 121.5 MHz. The SAR
helicopter continued to receive the PLB tone on 121.5 MHz but no voice transmissions. No
recordings of transmissions on 121.5 MHz were available.
through the pilot of another aircraft that the pilot of UXG change from 129.0 MHz to 121.5 MHz.
The pilot of UXG reportedly confirmed the frequency change and the crew of a commercial flight
later reported to ATC that they had received a transmission from UXG on 121.5 MHz. The SAR
helicopter continued to receive the PLB tone on 121.5 MHz but no voice transmissions. No
recordings of transmissions on 121.5 MHz were available.
If this is some kind of AUSAR SOP it needs to change.
Then back to the area frequency…………
Then an attempt to get another frequency change to 123.45, all the while the pilot is struggling in IMC. Des managed to keep this thing flying for a long time in IMC, I can only wonder what the extra workload of frequency changing did to his workload. Single Pilot IFR hand flying in cloud is hard enough when trained. This might have been the bit that broke him. I hope everyone learns something from this even if it was not the cause of the lost control.
PS Before anyone gets all upset, I am not slagging the help crew who were trying their hardest to help in a bad situation. Just a lesson to be learned here.
Last edited by Jabawocky; 19th Dec 2013 at 04:34.
Why on earth would you ask a pilot in distress to switch to a frequency that has the very beacon you asked them to with on?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No it doesn't make a lot of sense, but note that a PASSENGER activated the beacon and that passenger may have not been under the control of the pilot. A single pilot sits up the front well away from the passengers. In the mean time one of the passengers is calling up the Virgin AMCO office for assistance and the others who knows, perhaps activating their ELT.
See above.
It would not be unexpected that a portable PLB could be heard through a transmission from an Icom 210's transmissions due to the proximity of the transmitter aerial. I know that my PLB interferes with my VHF when in test mode.
It does seem strange that 21 minutes after the beacon is activated that SAR would request the pilot to change to 121.5.....
The pilot of UXG reportedly confirmed the frequency change and the crew of a commercial flight later reported to ATC that they had received a transmission from UXG on 121.5 MHz. The SAR elicopter continued to receive the PLB tone on 121.5 MHz but no voice transmissions.
As expected really.
Perhaps this is why the AMSA / SAR review is happening... maybe they realised that their response was incorrect on this occasion (purely based on what I'm reading)
Following a request from ATC at 1336, someone on board UXG activated a personal locator
The PLB also produced an ultra high frequency (UHF) 406 MHz digital beacon that was received by SAR satellites, and an audible tone that could be heard in the background of some of the radio calls made by the pilot of UXG.
At about 1357 the pilot of the SAR helicopter requested via relay
through the pilot of another aircraft that the pilot of UXG change from 129.0 MHz to 121.5 MHz.
through the pilot of another aircraft that the pilot of UXG change from 129.0 MHz to 121.5 MHz.
The pilot of UXG reportedly confirmed the frequency change and the crew of a commercial flight later reported to ATC that they had received a transmission from UXG on 121.5 MHz. The SAR elicopter continued to receive the PLB tone on 121.5 MHz but no voice transmissions.
Perhaps this is why the AMSA / SAR review is happening... maybe they realised that their response was incorrect on this occasion (purely based on what I'm reading)
Some things that stand out to me from the report...
Pg 22: ...High workload leads to a reduction in the number of information sources an individual will search, and the frequency or amount of time these sources are checked (Staal 2004). It can result in an individual’s performance on some tasks degrading, tasks being performed with simpler or less comprehensive strategies, or tasks being shed completely...
Pg 27: ...During the IFER, some ATC transmissions combined multiple requests for information and/or actions and UXG’s pilot generally responded to only one of the items...
page 34: (my bold) ...the aircraft’s radio was located low and forward of the control column, the pilot would have needed to reach forward and down, and possibly to one side, in order to see and manipulate the equipment. If in cloud and reliant on the aircraft’s primary flight instruments to maintain aircraft control, any head movement, inadvertent control movement, or diversion of attention away from those instruments would have interrupted the pilot’s instrument scan and affected his ability to maintain the aircraft’s attitude.
The pilot acknowledged a request to change radio frequencies shortly before the accident. However, the ATSB was unable to determine whether attempting to change radio frequencies contributed to spatial disorientation or some other problem (such as task shedding), which in turn led to the pilot being unable to complete the action. Alternatively, any subsequent transmissions from the aircraft may have been blocked by terrain, or the pilot may have tuned to a frequency that was not monitored, or he may not have actually made any transmissions...
http://atsb.gov.au/media/4478740/ao-2012-130_final.pdf
.
Pg 22: ...High workload leads to a reduction in the number of information sources an individual will search, and the frequency or amount of time these sources are checked (Staal 2004). It can result in an individual’s performance on some tasks degrading, tasks being performed with simpler or less comprehensive strategies, or tasks being shed completely...
Pg 27: ...During the IFER, some ATC transmissions combined multiple requests for information and/or actions and UXG’s pilot generally responded to only one of the items...
page 34: (my bold) ...the aircraft’s radio was located low and forward of the control column, the pilot would have needed to reach forward and down, and possibly to one side, in order to see and manipulate the equipment. If in cloud and reliant on the aircraft’s primary flight instruments to maintain aircraft control, any head movement, inadvertent control movement, or diversion of attention away from those instruments would have interrupted the pilot’s instrument scan and affected his ability to maintain the aircraft’s attitude.
The pilot acknowledged a request to change radio frequencies shortly before the accident. However, the ATSB was unable to determine whether attempting to change radio frequencies contributed to spatial disorientation or some other problem (such as task shedding), which in turn led to the pilot being unable to complete the action. Alternatively, any subsequent transmissions from the aircraft may have been blocked by terrain, or the pilot may have tuned to a frequency that was not monitored, or he may not have actually made any transmissions...
http://atsb.gov.au/media/4478740/ao-2012-130_final.pdf
.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Location of Instruments
It is interesting to see this report by atsb. Finally atsb are looking at location of instruments in the dash and drawing conclusions.
And not to be outdone - spatial orientation again!! Surprise, surprise
[see ABC Chopper report]
Pity that this did not happen with Lockhart River and who approved what.
However has atsb:
1. Gone to the approval in aircraft for locations of equipment??
2. Looked at the CAR 35 approval process and timliness of casa approvals?? or:
3. Reviewed the oversight by casa??
And not to be outdone - spatial orientation again!! Surprise, surprise
[see ABC Chopper report]
Pity that this did not happen with Lockhart River and who approved what.
However has atsb:
1. Gone to the approval in aircraft for locations of equipment??
2. Looked at the CAR 35 approval process and timliness of casa approvals?? or:
3. Reviewed the oversight by casa??
