As I right this reply I note that the ATSB Interim Factual report has just been posted on the ATSB Website.
It is interesting to read both that and the article in the latest issue of Australian Flying magazine.
One could believe that the one sided article in AF, the bulk of which appears to have come from the CFI at the subject flying school, is a spin job prior to the no doubt pending Coroners Inquest.
A few points to note.
1) The accident should not have happened as there were 6 aircraft in circuit. The solo aircraft was apparently the last to take off.
The ERSA states that only 5 aircraft should be in the circuit for MBZ operations at night.
The ATSB report has not mentioned this although it does refer to the AIP and what calls are required for MBZ operations.
In this respect the ATSB report is lacking.
2) The AF article points out/spins the line that the solo pilot had not been trained by the said flying school. Fine, so she was not used to the wide circuits that the school uses as its standard. Therefore one has to take the view that she had not been properly checked out and standardised by the school.
3) Do we take the view that her circuit was normal by the standard used by other schools and that the second aircraft was running a wide circuit at some 7 minutes.
4) The ATSB report puts a lot of words into discussion on the tower being closed and that aircraft were left to their own devices for circuit separation. There is an inference that all circuit traffic must be tower controlled to be safe.
If this were to be the case then any airport that has 5-6 aircraft in circuit should have a tower. How do CTAFs and Fly-ins operate without having multiple mid-airs ?
5) The ATSB report talks of the operator bringing in a requirement that the schools aircraft advise their position in the circuit by a number sequence, eg, 'number one' 'number two' etc.
This would be fine if only the aircraft of that school were in the air at that time. This is not the case.
The subject school has not advised any other school of its number sequence requirements and in any case the subject school does not write the air regulations.
6) There are continued wide circuits, excessivly wide circuits, day and night, by aircraft of the subject school.
Aircraft of the subject school continue to be involved in air and ground events that smack of lack of airmanship and lack of consideration for other users of the sky.