how many accidents and damaged aircraft incidents are caused by 'operational expediency' – rush, push and tear arse???
There is absolutely no evidence to support this. Not a single scrap.
The accident happened at about 3:15pm and he was doing a 156km flight home. So there was not much pressure of daylight. There was a good chance he was just flying back for a beer.
The problem with many of the ATSB reports is that they use half information an innuendo to cast aspersions on the pilot when they don't have a better idea.
The pilot has clearly stuffed up. The aircraft was a bit over 1% past its due time for the 100 hourly and the pilot's medical was lapsed, however his local DAME and treating specialists thought he was fit to fly. But the crashed aircraft is testimony to an error of judgement.
But the ATSB report has a string of omissions & data presented in an incomplete manner which makes the pilot look worse.
And CASA's Avmed units performance gets away without comment. This guy went for a medical on May 23 and got the letter from CASA suspending his licence on September 11. Very near 4 months. And by the data included in the ATSB report CASA's judgment was in conflict with the treating specialists.
Look at the Casa DAME register and Croydon is over 500km from the nearest DAME, so dealing with CASA's inevitable questions would have been difficult. Finding a specialist with CASA credentials to counter CASA's opinion might have required herculean effort. You can't help but think that the whole medical issue would have had a different outcome in Sydney where you could readily see specialists to challenge CASA.
The things that disturb me about this report are:
1. It identifies that the pilots blood had opiates, but does not quantify the level. This sounds bad, but opiates include panadeine. If he'd popped a couple of panadeine for a headache earlier that day he would record opiates, but taking a panadeine for a headache conjurers a different image than painted by this report.
2. The report says he has a blood alcohol reading of 0.029. But the witnesses say he had not had a drink that day (the time was 3pm - so it was probably 15 hours or more since his last drink) and the fine print refers to a text which identifies that post mortem blood tests record inflated blood alcohol readings. Google post mortem blood alcohol and you'll find many similar references. I don't believe its clear that the pilot was alcohol affected.
Take away the alcohol & opiates reference and the ATSB case for clouded judgement is pretty tenuous.
3. I don't trust the ATSB measurement of take off distance. There is no reference to it being measured on the ground vs simply done in Canberra at someone's desk with Google Earth. How did they assess the beginning of the take-off run? The report refers to the point where witnesses heard the sound of the engine increasing power. But was allowance made for the delay in the sound reaching the witnesses? How good were the witnesses? Where were they standing?? Would the pilot really have left the nice straight section behind him? The ATSB report indicates they measured a straight line, but there is some ability for an aircraft to have a curved takeoff run. What difference does that make? Its feasible that these issues might make the take off distance acceptable.
4. The effect of wind is completely unclear. I have seem ATSB reports where they have gotten tailwinds & headwinds completely mixed up. This report does not give us any primary data. We don't know the direction of the road. We know some winds in other places, but there is no eye witness reports on the wind on the ground, nor discussion that the valley created by the trees either side of the road might modify the local wind.
If the aircraft took off with a headwind and the available take off distance was longer, then all of a sudden the ATSB's premise that the road was inappropriate is challenged. Is that why they don't present primary data?
5. The ATSB use take off data over a 50 ft obstacle, yet the report, says the trees were 25 -30 ft high. This means that the ATSB has not correctly used the aircraft performance charts.
6. There is inadequate discussion of recency. The report says that the pilot had flown 50 hours in this aircraft in the last 90 days - all in the aircraft and this his last flight was 7 days prior. He was current and knew the aircraft. But it would be germane to know what the flights were. If the pilot had been doing regular flights to this work camp, or was regularly landing on roads in the area, then casts the accident in a different light. The ATSB will (or should) know this history. Why do they not include a commentary on the pilot's experience landing on roads?
Seriously, if the ATSB can't do better than this, why don't we shut it down and bank the money?