Chieftain Crash at Rand Airport
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chieftain Crash at Rand Airport
Well, I see the prelim report is out on the Chieftain crash.
Engine failure on takeoff, and with the aircraft approx 700 lbs overweight poor bugger was unable to go round and hit the deck killing all 11 on board.
Although the Company is suspended, the "Ultimate Responsiblity" will no doubt be laid on the pilot.
At least it has opened a active and public debate about charter standards and the pressure being put on pilots to fly outside the limits.
How often are pilots being pushed into this situation by the operators?
Even the pax cannot be relied upon to know what is good for them.
3 years ago one of my Senecas was stranded at a bush strip for 24 hrs with a MP drop on one engine.
The hunter, 3 pax and baggage really pushed the pilot hard to take him back to base ON ONE ENGINE.He was finally persuaded to wait for the replacement aircraft.
Engine failure on takeoff, and with the aircraft approx 700 lbs overweight poor bugger was unable to go round and hit the deck killing all 11 on board.
Although the Company is suspended, the "Ultimate Responsiblity" will no doubt be laid on the pilot.
At least it has opened a active and public debate about charter standards and the pressure being put on pilots to fly outside the limits.
How often are pilots being pushed into this situation by the operators?
Even the pax cannot be relied upon to know what is good for them.
3 years ago one of my Senecas was stranded at a bush strip for 24 hrs with a MP drop on one engine.
The hunter, 3 pax and baggage really pushed the pilot hard to take him back to base ON ONE ENGINE.He was finally persuaded to wait for the replacement aircraft.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Flying Bean,
When did this a/c crash and where? Did it stay with the airfield boundry? Very sad news.
I was in 'Gangsters Province'for most of 1997. Flying with the SAPS Airwing out of Rand for 3 months, best days of my life. Also flew with 60Sqn from Waterkloof. Lekker jol.
Go well my friend.
When did this a/c crash and where? Did it stay with the airfield boundry? Very sad news.
I was in 'Gangsters Province'for most of 1997. Flying with the SAPS Airwing out of Rand for 3 months, best days of my life. Also flew with 60Sqn from Waterkloof. Lekker jol.
Go well my friend.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is one of the most dangerous areas a pilot can be, with company and passenger pressure to fly when conditions are right. The fact that you got away with it once or twice before makes the situation worse. As published in our Eastern Cape Herald the pilot had feared for losing his job if he refused to fly......what a sad stage air charter has got to. My advice, stick to your guns if you are not sure.....don't go.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Aircraft was flying with full tanks,pax and baggage to Namibia, possibly one of the problems in streching the range and load.
Lost power in the one engine, maybe due to faulty exhaust manifold, and stalled just outside the airport boundary, coming down just the other side of the N17 Highway.
This was a regular Monday morning charter for the company taking 10 employees(out of a total of 19!) of a small, go ahead computer company for the weeks work in Namibia. Very Tragic.
Lost power in the one engine, maybe due to faulty exhaust manifold, and stalled just outside the airport boundary, coming down just the other side of the N17 Highway.
This was a regular Monday morning charter for the company taking 10 employees(out of a total of 19!) of a small, go ahead computer company for the weeks work in Namibia. Very Tragic.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Crack 'caused overloaded plane crash'
January 20 2000 at 11:07PM
A tiny break in an exhaust pipe of an overloaded plane is believed to
have ultimately led to the engine power loss which caused last months'
horror air crash in which 10 people died.
This was exacerbated by dirt in a fuel nozzle further reducing power
when it left one of six cylinders not working properly.
As a result, the aircraft did not have enough power to gain height, and
crashed two minutes after take off.
Flightline, the charter company which ran the aeroplane, faces the
possibility of legal action based on the findings of an eight-man
investigation by the Civil Aviation Authority, which included Australian
expert Brent Hayward.
The investigation team found that:
The aeroplane, which was certified to carry 3 182kg, was carrying at
least 357kg over the prescribed weight.
Flightline's Aircraft Operating Certificate had expired on November 29 - a
week before the fatal crash.
"Considerable deficiencies" were identified in the operator's
documentation, an integral part of safety management.
Several discrepancies were detected in the Civil Aviation Authority's
records.
Several "anomalies" were identified in the authority's role as a
regulatory body.
On Thursday, as the report was being released to the media, a follow-up
inspection was taking place at the company's Rand Airport facility.
Flightline manager Declan McEneaney declined to comment on the matter,
describing as "senseless" the release of findings to the media before the
company had been given a chance to peruse the document.
"Nobody in this company has seen or heard the contents of the report,"
he said.
Also unwilling to comment was Documentation and Training International.
Spokesperson Amanda Jordaan said: "We'll probably have to meet with
our lawyers before we come to a decision."
According to investigation head Dr Andre de Kock, the accident occurred
as result of one of the plane's engines losing power when a tiny piece
broke off an exhaust manifold - a crucial part of the engine.
But the aircraft could have continued flying and landed safely on one
engine, had it not been overloaded.
Detailed investigations undertaken by the team included recovering all
the baggage which could be found at the scene of the crash and
weighing it on a calibrated scale at the South African Bureau of Standards
.
Civil Aviation Commissioner Trevor Abrahams said the aircraft should have
been able to fly on one engine, and that a substantial part of pilot
training involved dealing with crises as result of engine failure.
"If other factors are introduced, such as overloading, your chances of
surviving an engine failure become minimised significantly," he said.
The Civil Aviation Authority has stressed that its investigations were
intended to "establish probable cause, not apportion blame" or legal
liability.
Of the four air disasters which occurred in the week of the Piper Chieftain
crash - described as the worst week in South African aviation history in a
decade - two have been attributed to bad weather and the cause of the
fourth remains unknown.
------------------
Happiness is VR at Lagos!
January 20 2000 at 11:07PM
A tiny break in an exhaust pipe of an overloaded plane is believed to
have ultimately led to the engine power loss which caused last months'
horror air crash in which 10 people died.
This was exacerbated by dirt in a fuel nozzle further reducing power
when it left one of six cylinders not working properly.
As a result, the aircraft did not have enough power to gain height, and
crashed two minutes after take off.
Flightline, the charter company which ran the aeroplane, faces the
possibility of legal action based on the findings of an eight-man
investigation by the Civil Aviation Authority, which included Australian
expert Brent Hayward.
The investigation team found that:
The aeroplane, which was certified to carry 3 182kg, was carrying at
least 357kg over the prescribed weight.
Flightline's Aircraft Operating Certificate had expired on November 29 - a
week before the fatal crash.
"Considerable deficiencies" were identified in the operator's
documentation, an integral part of safety management.
Several discrepancies were detected in the Civil Aviation Authority's
records.
Several "anomalies" were identified in the authority's role as a
regulatory body.
On Thursday, as the report was being released to the media, a follow-up
inspection was taking place at the company's Rand Airport facility.
Flightline manager Declan McEneaney declined to comment on the matter,
describing as "senseless" the release of findings to the media before the
company had been given a chance to peruse the document.
"Nobody in this company has seen or heard the contents of the report,"
he said.
Also unwilling to comment was Documentation and Training International.
Spokesperson Amanda Jordaan said: "We'll probably have to meet with
our lawyers before we come to a decision."
According to investigation head Dr Andre de Kock, the accident occurred
as result of one of the plane's engines losing power when a tiny piece
broke off an exhaust manifold - a crucial part of the engine.
But the aircraft could have continued flying and landed safely on one
engine, had it not been overloaded.
Detailed investigations undertaken by the team included recovering all
the baggage which could be found at the scene of the crash and
weighing it on a calibrated scale at the South African Bureau of Standards
.
Civil Aviation Commissioner Trevor Abrahams said the aircraft should have
been able to fly on one engine, and that a substantial part of pilot
training involved dealing with crises as result of engine failure.
"If other factors are introduced, such as overloading, your chances of
surviving an engine failure become minimised significantly," he said.
The Civil Aviation Authority has stressed that its investigations were
intended to "establish probable cause, not apportion blame" or legal
liability.
Of the four air disasters which occurred in the week of the Piper Chieftain
crash - described as the worst week in South African aviation history in a
decade - two have been attributed to bad weather and the cause of the
fourth remains unknown.
------------------
Happiness is VR at Lagos!
GunsssR4ever
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Out there somewhere ...
Posts: 3,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flight Line Charter CC Blamed for crash
After nearly 2 and a half years .... the company was blamed .... RIP Guv ;-)
Company blamed for air crash ( http://www.news24.com/News24/South_A...184467,00.html )
Johannesburg - An aircraft charter company has been found to have been negligent by an inquest into an aircraft accident near Germiston in December 1999 in which 10 people lost their lives.
The inquest, held in the Edenvale regional court on Tuesday, found the luggage had not been weighed before the plane took off from Rand Airport in Germiston.
It was also found that the owner of Flight Line Charter CC had changed information in the operating manual of the aircraft which indicated the maximum take-off mass allowed. As a result, the aircraft was 363kg overweight.
The plane was on its way to Oranjemund in Namibia sand had engine failure shortly after take off and crashed, bursting into flames. The pilot and nine passengers, all of them employees of a computer training company, were killed.
The inquest found that the pilot, "JD" Heyns had acted according to prescribed emergency procedures when the engine failed. The overloading of the plane had made it impossible to fly the plane on only one engine.
The inquest findings are to be forwarded to the public prosecutor who will make a decision on the possible prosecution of the charter-company owner.
Company blamed for air crash ( http://www.news24.com/News24/South_A...184467,00.html )
Johannesburg - An aircraft charter company has been found to have been negligent by an inquest into an aircraft accident near Germiston in December 1999 in which 10 people lost their lives.
The inquest, held in the Edenvale regional court on Tuesday, found the luggage had not been weighed before the plane took off from Rand Airport in Germiston.
It was also found that the owner of Flight Line Charter CC had changed information in the operating manual of the aircraft which indicated the maximum take-off mass allowed. As a result, the aircraft was 363kg overweight.
The plane was on its way to Oranjemund in Namibia sand had engine failure shortly after take off and crashed, bursting into flames. The pilot and nine passengers, all of them employees of a computer training company, were killed.
The inquest found that the pilot, "JD" Heyns had acted according to prescribed emergency procedures when the engine failed. The overloading of the plane had made it impossible to fly the plane on only one engine.
The inquest findings are to be forwarded to the public prosecutor who will make a decision on the possible prosecution of the charter-company owner.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Here and There
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sweepback, I couldn't agree with you more.
The ruling against Flightline today is hopefully the first step to cleaning up the charter industry.
I too found myself in the situation "JD" faced countless times during the period that I was employed at Flightline Charter Services. The phrase "there are lots of unemployed pilots out there who will do it" was used more than once to PERSUADE "JD" and the rest of us to "go" when we felt uncomfortable with the situation. It is easy to blame the pilot in these situations but it seems as though the Public as well as the Courts are starting to realise (what we as pilots have known for a long time) that a lot of the blame should be pointed at the charter companies who are exploiting low time pilots.
"JD" was an incredibly gifted pilot. He and his 9 passengers were unfortunately the victims of a failed system.
I have spent much time sitting in my privileged vantage point at the front of a widebody jet thinking about what the difference was between "JD" and some of us "low timers" that made it through the charter system. The answer a lot of the time is simply LUCK! I hope that todays ruling will start to change that.
Your name has been cleared. RIP Kappie Heyns. We miss you Buddy.
The ruling against Flightline today is hopefully the first step to cleaning up the charter industry.
I too found myself in the situation "JD" faced countless times during the period that I was employed at Flightline Charter Services. The phrase "there are lots of unemployed pilots out there who will do it" was used more than once to PERSUADE "JD" and the rest of us to "go" when we felt uncomfortable with the situation. It is easy to blame the pilot in these situations but it seems as though the Public as well as the Courts are starting to realise (what we as pilots have known for a long time) that a lot of the blame should be pointed at the charter companies who are exploiting low time pilots.
"JD" was an incredibly gifted pilot. He and his 9 passengers were unfortunately the victims of a failed system.
I have spent much time sitting in my privileged vantage point at the front of a widebody jet thinking about what the difference was between "JD" and some of us "low timers" that made it through the charter system. The answer a lot of the time is simply LUCK! I hope that todays ruling will start to change that.
Your name has been cleared. RIP Kappie Heyns. We miss you Buddy.
GunsssR4ever
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Out there somewhere ...
Posts: 3,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could not say it better ..
Whodunnit,
It is amazing : Sweepback's comments was shortly after the crash and in the mean time 2 years went by.
I did not know Kappie but RIP - your friend Whodunnit summarized it ! Could not say it better ....
Strange how the hughe outcry re the Chinook crash in the UK is still being discussed on the Mil and Heli forums, purely to clear the pilot's names ... demolished by politicians in that case !
Cheers,
It is amazing : Sweepback's comments was shortly after the crash and in the mean time 2 years went by.
I did not know Kappie but RIP - your friend Whodunnit summarized it ! Could not say it better ....
Strange how the hughe outcry re the Chinook crash in the UK is still being discussed on the Mil and Heli forums, purely to clear the pilot's names ... demolished by politicians in that case !
Cheers,
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Pretoria
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAA Statement - ZS -OJY
Mr. P. J. Du Plessis, the Magistrate presiding over the Judicial Inquest into the deaths caused by the fatal aircraft accident near Rand Airport on 6 December 1999, in which 10 lives were lost, released his findings and recommendations yesterday. The Judicial Inquest was conducted over sixteen days during April 2002.
The CAA welcomed and cooperated fully with the inquest proceedings and hoped that this process would assist in closing this tragic event, particularly for the families of the victims of the crash.
The crashed aircraft operated by Flightline Charters had taken off from Rand Airport on a commercial charter flight to Orangemund in Namibia, when shortly after taking off, the pilot reported an emergency to the control tower and requested clearance to return to the airport to land. The aircraft crashed about two minutes after take off and everybody on board lost their lives.
The investigation into the accident, conducted by the CAA, revealed that the probable cause of the accident was the failure of a critical exhaust pipe segment, which in turn caused the right-hand engine to lose power/fail. It is was also found that the aircraft exceeded it's designed load limit.
This overloaded condition of the aircraft was thus a highly significant contributory factor to the accident. The company’s lack of flight operations management experience, professional flight standards supervision and an operational safety management program were regarded as significant contributing factors.
The anomalies noted in regulatory oversight of the operator (airworthiness and flight operations surveillance by the former Chief Directorate:CAA in the Department of Transport and CAA are regarded as possible contributing factors.
According to the Commissioner for Civil Aviation, Mr. Trevor Abrahams "this was a landmark accident investigation for the Civil Aviation Authority as it represents a whole new approach to investigating accidents through a detailed investigation not only of the immediate circumstances and conditions surrounding the accident, but also a close look at the chain of actions and inactions by all connected parties that could be identified as possibly contributing to the tragic event.
A total of 17 safety recommendations arose out of the investigation. Fifteen of these were directed at the Civil Aviation Authority for implementation. The other two were each directed at the pilot community and at commercial charter operators.
Inquest findings highlighted the following aspects surrounding the accident.
The aircraft sustained a power loss in the right hand engine shortly after take off and that the pilot flew the aircraft in accordance with the pilot’s operating handbook.
The aircraft was certified to fly on one engine but that the overweight condition resulted in the subsequent crash.
The magistrate also found that the accident investigation conducted by the CAA was extensive and that the overweight of the aircraft was substantially under reported in the accident report and that the actual weight of the aircraft was substantially more than the certified maximum take off weight limit of the aircraft.
The magistrate also found that the operator’s practices in loading the aircraft was at variance with the approved operators manual of Flight Line Charter Services in that the baggage was not weighed nor was the required weight and balance calculated for the accident flight.
The magistrate emphasized that once the CAA approved an Operations Manual, the operators had a responsibility to ensure compliance with that approved Operations Manual.
The operator was found to have deviated significantly from the CAA approved Operators Manual in terms of the critical issue of weight and balance of their aircraft. Specifically, the accident flight was loaded to capacity and the General Manager should have ensured proper weighing of the cargo and passengers on the 6th of December 1999.
The magistrate also found that the CEO of Flightline Charter Services C.C. had erroneously amended the Pilots Operating Handbook, thereby giving the pilot an incorrect basis for calculating the maximum take off mass of the aircraft.
The magistrate’s recommendations included:
1. That the CAA consider disciplinary steps against officers who accepted the patently incorrect information submitted on the test flight report submitted to the CAA. The magistrate also ruled that the remoteness of this action ruled out any prosecution involving the CAA.
2. That the maintenance organization (AMO), PLACO’s failure to notify the CAA when the Mandatory Periodic Inspections were late or over flown, was a serious indictment of the AMO. The magistrate also found PLACO’s conduct as the seller and registration AMO as warranting severe criticism but that the remoteness to the actual accident ruled out prosecution.
3. That the manner of loading of the accident flight resulted in a clear case of negligence on the part of the operator and Mr. Declan McEneany, in his personal capacity, in respect of each passenger.
4. That Miles van der Molen, in his personal capacity and as CEO of Flightline Charter Services C.C. was negligent in relation to the death of the 9 passengers and the pilot for having erroneously altering the pilot’s Operating Handbook.
The CAA will study the findings and recommendations of this inquest and identify which steps we need to take to enhance aviation safety in South Africa.
Notwithstanding the tragic events on the 6th of December 1999, air transport remains the safest mode of travel.
The CAA has taken a number of steps in the wake of this accident, including the implementation of the accident report’s safety recommendations, to ensure continuing improvement in the level of safety in our aviation industry.
In some cases, the CAA does encounter operators who refuse to comply with the minimum safety requirements and ultimately have to take action to deprive them of their licence to operate, as was done with Flightline Charters in 2000.
The CAA will continue to work with industry to enhance our aviation safety standards but will also take decisive action to close operators who refuse to comply with aviation safety regulations.
The CAA welcomed and cooperated fully with the inquest proceedings and hoped that this process would assist in closing this tragic event, particularly for the families of the victims of the crash.
The crashed aircraft operated by Flightline Charters had taken off from Rand Airport on a commercial charter flight to Orangemund in Namibia, when shortly after taking off, the pilot reported an emergency to the control tower and requested clearance to return to the airport to land. The aircraft crashed about two minutes after take off and everybody on board lost their lives.
The investigation into the accident, conducted by the CAA, revealed that the probable cause of the accident was the failure of a critical exhaust pipe segment, which in turn caused the right-hand engine to lose power/fail. It is was also found that the aircraft exceeded it's designed load limit.
This overloaded condition of the aircraft was thus a highly significant contributory factor to the accident. The company’s lack of flight operations management experience, professional flight standards supervision and an operational safety management program were regarded as significant contributing factors.
The anomalies noted in regulatory oversight of the operator (airworthiness and flight operations surveillance by the former Chief Directorate:CAA in the Department of Transport and CAA are regarded as possible contributing factors.
According to the Commissioner for Civil Aviation, Mr. Trevor Abrahams "this was a landmark accident investigation for the Civil Aviation Authority as it represents a whole new approach to investigating accidents through a detailed investigation not only of the immediate circumstances and conditions surrounding the accident, but also a close look at the chain of actions and inactions by all connected parties that could be identified as possibly contributing to the tragic event.
A total of 17 safety recommendations arose out of the investigation. Fifteen of these were directed at the Civil Aviation Authority for implementation. The other two were each directed at the pilot community and at commercial charter operators.
Inquest findings highlighted the following aspects surrounding the accident.
The aircraft sustained a power loss in the right hand engine shortly after take off and that the pilot flew the aircraft in accordance with the pilot’s operating handbook.
The aircraft was certified to fly on one engine but that the overweight condition resulted in the subsequent crash.
The magistrate also found that the accident investigation conducted by the CAA was extensive and that the overweight of the aircraft was substantially under reported in the accident report and that the actual weight of the aircraft was substantially more than the certified maximum take off weight limit of the aircraft.
The magistrate also found that the operator’s practices in loading the aircraft was at variance with the approved operators manual of Flight Line Charter Services in that the baggage was not weighed nor was the required weight and balance calculated for the accident flight.
The magistrate emphasized that once the CAA approved an Operations Manual, the operators had a responsibility to ensure compliance with that approved Operations Manual.
The operator was found to have deviated significantly from the CAA approved Operators Manual in terms of the critical issue of weight and balance of their aircraft. Specifically, the accident flight was loaded to capacity and the General Manager should have ensured proper weighing of the cargo and passengers on the 6th of December 1999.
The magistrate also found that the CEO of Flightline Charter Services C.C. had erroneously amended the Pilots Operating Handbook, thereby giving the pilot an incorrect basis for calculating the maximum take off mass of the aircraft.
The magistrate’s recommendations included:
1. That the CAA consider disciplinary steps against officers who accepted the patently incorrect information submitted on the test flight report submitted to the CAA. The magistrate also ruled that the remoteness of this action ruled out any prosecution involving the CAA.
2. That the maintenance organization (AMO), PLACO’s failure to notify the CAA when the Mandatory Periodic Inspections were late or over flown, was a serious indictment of the AMO. The magistrate also found PLACO’s conduct as the seller and registration AMO as warranting severe criticism but that the remoteness to the actual accident ruled out prosecution.
3. That the manner of loading of the accident flight resulted in a clear case of negligence on the part of the operator and Mr. Declan McEneany, in his personal capacity, in respect of each passenger.
4. That Miles van der Molen, in his personal capacity and as CEO of Flightline Charter Services C.C. was negligent in relation to the death of the 9 passengers and the pilot for having erroneously altering the pilot’s Operating Handbook.
The CAA will study the findings and recommendations of this inquest and identify which steps we need to take to enhance aviation safety in South Africa.
Notwithstanding the tragic events on the 6th of December 1999, air transport remains the safest mode of travel.
The CAA has taken a number of steps in the wake of this accident, including the implementation of the accident report’s safety recommendations, to ensure continuing improvement in the level of safety in our aviation industry.
In some cases, the CAA does encounter operators who refuse to comply with the minimum safety requirements and ultimately have to take action to deprive them of their licence to operate, as was done with Flightline Charters in 2000.
The CAA will continue to work with industry to enhance our aviation safety standards but will also take decisive action to close operators who refuse to comply with aviation safety regulations.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Here and There
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freightboss,
You are 100% correct. Same crowd.
What about ZS-NHM. Overloaded Chieftain that crashed off Rwy 29 at Rand en-route to Eros. Same bunch. That one didn't make the headlines because the pilots escaped with only minor injuries.
The Chieftain crash in Mozambique that killed the pilot and engineer was a Flightline aircraft too.
Rumour has it that these blokes have been caught with overloaded F406's at Eros, Windhoek a number of times.
It is all very well to close the company down after an incident like ZS-OJY but the people involved just start up under a new name or join up with another shady operator and pay to use his operating license.
Makes you think....
You are 100% correct. Same crowd.
What about ZS-NHM. Overloaded Chieftain that crashed off Rwy 29 at Rand en-route to Eros. Same bunch. That one didn't make the headlines because the pilots escaped with only minor injuries.
The Chieftain crash in Mozambique that killed the pilot and engineer was a Flightline aircraft too.
Rumour has it that these blokes have been caught with overloaded F406's at Eros, Windhoek a number of times.
It is all very well to close the company down after an incident like ZS-OJY but the people involved just start up under a new name or join up with another shady operator and pay to use his operating license.
Makes you think....
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all the guys at this forum, thanks for giving your views.The pilot under discussion was a very close and dear friend and quite true, a truely sad state of affairs in the charter industry!!!!
I don't know how many of U have been in such a situation, but it is not easy......do I-don't I. BAD,BAD,BAD I suppose it is always the same, kick a tree and 10 pilots fall out!!!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing will ever change until the employers who push pilots into situations that end up in fatatilities are charged with crimminal homicide.
Then put them in jail where they belong.
And keep them in jail forever:
Cat Driver:
.................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Then put them in jail where they belong.
And keep them in jail forever:
Cat Driver:
.................
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
Last edited by 4HolerPoler; 15th May 2002 at 21:38.
GunsssR4ever
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Out there somewhere ...
Posts: 3,816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"erroneously altering the pilot’s Operating Handbook"
".....and the pilot for having erroneously altering the pilot’s Operating Handbook"
Whodunnit and Jockstrap,
A loss of a pilot is always a sad occasion - ask me I have lost PLENTY friends over a 25 years career in flying. (Needless to say I was in the SAAF during the old bush war.)
I do not wanna sound like an old daddy but I had a serious crash last year in which I lost my first passenger in 25 years / 7000 hours / 4000 on heli's (bush war) so the Old Man has looked after me. Double engine cut in a heli that can not fly on one engine ... after take off .. ton overweight (when I started translating the russian books the RIGHT way ) ... all I further want to say it made me a better person and I will NEVER just blame a pilot or blame an aircraft for that matter.
Ok to get to my point .. sorry sidetracked ...
Thanks for the full report from Trevor, but please can anyone tell me how can the" .... and the pilot for having erroneously altering the pilot’s Operating Handbook" ... if the pilots operating handbook is like an Aerrad : Did he put the wrong aircraft spec at the wrong place or what ?? Just sounds very strange ??
All the best and once again - my thanks to everyone that assisted in getting this report out - and it looks like a thorough one on top of it!
Best regards to the friends and family still in grief.
Cheers
Whodunnit and Jockstrap,
A loss of a pilot is always a sad occasion - ask me I have lost PLENTY friends over a 25 years career in flying. (Needless to say I was in the SAAF during the old bush war.)
I do not wanna sound like an old daddy but I had a serious crash last year in which I lost my first passenger in 25 years / 7000 hours / 4000 on heli's (bush war) so the Old Man has looked after me. Double engine cut in a heli that can not fly on one engine ... after take off .. ton overweight (when I started translating the russian books the RIGHT way ) ... all I further want to say it made me a better person and I will NEVER just blame a pilot or blame an aircraft for that matter.
Ok to get to my point .. sorry sidetracked ...
Thanks for the full report from Trevor, but please can anyone tell me how can the" .... and the pilot for having erroneously altering the pilot’s Operating Handbook" ... if the pilots operating handbook is like an Aerrad : Did he put the wrong aircraft spec at the wrong place or what ?? Just sounds very strange ??
All the best and once again - my thanks to everyone that assisted in getting this report out - and it looks like a thorough one on top of it!
Best regards to the friends and family still in grief.
Cheers
Last edited by Gunship; 15th May 2002 at 21:50.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: All over Africa
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot's Choice to live or die...
Flying Bean, Chuck and the rest that all mentioned that pilots are pressured into flying, here is some food for thought. I suppose some will say that I should get off my high horse, but here goes...
There has been a lot of "but the operator pressurised me to do the flight" over the last couple of years. Where does it stop?
Part 91 of the SACARS clearly state that the captain takes ultimate responsibility for the safety of his aircraft and pax. But is that all? I believe that the captain of an aircraft is the last link in the safety chain - if he/she makes the decision to fly, that's it.
However, what a lot of operators (and unfortunately pilots also) prefer not to say out to loud, is that Parts 135 and 121 clearly state that "the operator...is responsible for the safety of the operation...".
Now I believe that (and thankfully I have never been put into a situation where I had to make that choice), the choice should be easy. "I choose to live".
I am sure that once pilots see that some other pilots choose not to do certain flights and stand together to make it known that a specific operator operates outside of the regulations, things will start to change. Any pilot can phone in to the CAA and report an operator.
From an operator's side, there is nothing that pisses me off more than to see some poor sop (scared out of his skull that he might be fired) flying a f****d-up aircraft that hasn't seen the inside of an AMO for years, at night, overweight and in the process screws me in the eye by taking business away from me because he can do it cheaper.
I believe that it is time for the pilots and straight operators (of which I would like to believe there sure are some) to stand up to unscrupolous operators and take them down. It for our own good and for the good of the flying public...
There, nou het ek my straaltjie gepis, lets get some more thoughts on this...
There has been a lot of "but the operator pressurised me to do the flight" over the last couple of years. Where does it stop?
Part 91 of the SACARS clearly state that the captain takes ultimate responsibility for the safety of his aircraft and pax. But is that all? I believe that the captain of an aircraft is the last link in the safety chain - if he/she makes the decision to fly, that's it.
However, what a lot of operators (and unfortunately pilots also) prefer not to say out to loud, is that Parts 135 and 121 clearly state that "the operator...is responsible for the safety of the operation...".
Now I believe that (and thankfully I have never been put into a situation where I had to make that choice), the choice should be easy. "I choose to live".
I am sure that once pilots see that some other pilots choose not to do certain flights and stand together to make it known that a specific operator operates outside of the regulations, things will start to change. Any pilot can phone in to the CAA and report an operator.
From an operator's side, there is nothing that pisses me off more than to see some poor sop (scared out of his skull that he might be fired) flying a f****d-up aircraft that hasn't seen the inside of an AMO for years, at night, overweight and in the process screws me in the eye by taking business away from me because he can do it cheaper.
I believe that it is time for the pilots and straight operators (of which I would like to believe there sure are some) to stand up to unscrupolous operators and take them down. It for our own good and for the good of the flying public...
There, nou het ek my straaltjie gepis, lets get some more thoughts on this...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Freightboss. After 40 plus years in General Aviation must agree with your statement " the last link in the safety chain is the person who opens the throttle". If these operators are so bad why is it no problem for them to aquire all the drivers they want?
Surely if it is known they are shonky operators you steer clear of them and get a job with a reputable Company, then hopefully good operators would not get their rates undercut, be able to pay a fair wage, get the work and hire more drivers into a good environment. Sometimes you must look from a high horse.
Surely if it is known they are shonky operators you steer clear of them and get a job with a reputable Company, then hopefully good operators would not get their rates undercut, be able to pay a fair wage, get the work and hire more drivers into a good environment. Sometimes you must look from a high horse.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: In the oil wealth of sand dunes
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Altering the Pilot Operating Handbook- Could this mean that the owners altered the basic operating empty weight in the handbook, thus allowing an overloading situation, unknown to the pilot?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Outa Africa
Age: 54
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"If these operators are so bad, why is it no problem for them to acquire all the drivers they want?"
Prospector,
Is that a serious question? Why do you think they can get all the drivers they want? Have you ever been jumping up as hard as you can to grab hold of the bottom rung of the aviation ladder? Some people get onto the ladder easier than others, and most of us are lucky enough to work for decent operators, or at least learn fast enough to stay ahead of the curve long enough to get out and get a better job with a better operator.
Some don't. And there will always be the desperate but unlucky types who aren't as fortunate with that first job. Generally, I guess, these are the ones who we all read about in the papers and condemn. Well, as wrong as it is, this is the way things are, and the only way it will stop is for the relevant authorities to clamp down on the operators in question. The pilots they employ are just trying to make a start, and usually don't know any better.
We all know the result, it is the cause that needs to be eliminated.
Just my humble opinion...
NP.
Prospector,
Is that a serious question? Why do you think they can get all the drivers they want? Have you ever been jumping up as hard as you can to grab hold of the bottom rung of the aviation ladder? Some people get onto the ladder easier than others, and most of us are lucky enough to work for decent operators, or at least learn fast enough to stay ahead of the curve long enough to get out and get a better job with a better operator.
Some don't. And there will always be the desperate but unlucky types who aren't as fortunate with that first job. Generally, I guess, these are the ones who we all read about in the papers and condemn. Well, as wrong as it is, this is the way things are, and the only way it will stop is for the relevant authorities to clamp down on the operators in question. The pilots they employ are just trying to make a start, and usually don't know any better.
We all know the result, it is the cause that needs to be eliminated.
Just my humble opinion...
NP.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If the cause is eliminated, where then will these people get their first job?. Back to square one, dont work for them if they dont comply with good operating practices. The pilot, new boy or not still knows a lot more of what is going on than unsuspecting passengers, and we get back to the fact that the person who opens the throttles is the last link in the safety chain.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Outa Africa
Age: 54
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howzit Prospector,
I guess if the root cause of the problem, ie. the unscrupulous operator was eliminated from the system, then the first job for pilots would be with the decent operators who remained.
I would be naive in the extreme, though, to ever expect this to actually happen. You are totally correct, the fact is that these companies exist and are often the starting block for many new pilots. I guess the upside of it is that for the majority who make it through this baptism of fire, it is a good educational experience and teaches them what they can and can't do in an aircraft when they are lined up at midday and 35 degrees C on that 750 metre bushstrip in a Chieftain full of hunting clients etc.
I am not condoning it though, and wouldn't want to explain it to the families of those who don't make it.
I guess we are some of the lucky ones.
Cheers,
NP.
I guess if the root cause of the problem, ie. the unscrupulous operator was eliminated from the system, then the first job for pilots would be with the decent operators who remained.
I would be naive in the extreme, though, to ever expect this to actually happen. You are totally correct, the fact is that these companies exist and are often the starting block for many new pilots. I guess the upside of it is that for the majority who make it through this baptism of fire, it is a good educational experience and teaches them what they can and can't do in an aircraft when they are lined up at midday and 35 degrees C on that 750 metre bushstrip in a Chieftain full of hunting clients etc.
I am not condoning it though, and wouldn't want to explain it to the families of those who don't make it.
I guess we are some of the lucky ones.
Cheers,
NP.