It seems the link to the article has been removed but it is about as relevant to aviation safety as last years People Magazine and about as well researched. The "Pratt" refered to is exactly that, he works for a legal firm that are the quintessential ambulance chasers. They wait for an tragedy such as this and then run off to the grieving families and speak of heinous negligence and recklessness. Naturally they also offer to make the evil operator pay, for a small fee of course, say 50% of the claim.

He didn't end up doing such work because he was skilled. No, he does it because he has no options and is greedy, minipulative and ethically baron enough to sink to any level. So give it the consideration it deserves.

I hope thdere is a special place in Hell for garbage like him.

Charlie Victor Sierra asks what is the point. Yes one make fun of harryflying for thier initial post and it could be construed that he might be kicking the company while it is down or maybe he is just stirring the pot a bit. Here is my initial post!

I have heard of the near accident by A2-TEN and also understand from those I know in Maun that the pilot then failed to report it to management. Obviously harryflying may not know this. We all know mistakes do happen, so the mistake should not be the focus of this information. Failing to report such a mistake is poor airmanship and a poor attitude toward the job. A real ostrige mentality and the pilot should be taken to task on that alone. Perhaps harryflying is as interested as the rest of us as to what is going on in this company and what their attitudes are all about – four accidents in 3 years prior to this tragic event. I also understand from those same people that this is exactly the kind of attitude that Martin Gresswell (AKD’s pilot) was fighting against in his short role within the company, and apparently losing, with certain pilots and senior management. I say losing becaise I have been told he resigned a week before the accident. Maybe we should all be asking the hard questions and stop worry about injuring sensibilities – I don’t know just my thoughts.

I want to lay a few ghosts to rest in this thread...

1. Martin had just resigned from Moremi because he wasn't happy with their operations.
2. This was not an take-off failure - he had successfully cleared any runway obstacles. So discussion on airstrip parameters is not so valid as the final crash site is approximately a mile off the end of the runway.
3. He had time to make a mayday call - which would seem to indicate that whatever happened happened as he rotated/got airborne. (If you're crashing cos you've run out of runway, you keep hoping you're going to make it until you actually plant in the end of the runway - I can't imagine anyone making a mayday call while you're still barrelling down the runway in takeoff mode).
4. Trees were not an issue - the way he turned out after take off has NO significant trees. The only tree that was a factor was the one that caught his wing as he was trying to put the plane down.
5. Witnesses report the plane was on fire before impact.
6. Witnesses report hearing a pop/bang just as/after the aircraft got airborne.
7. Witnesses also report there was a horn sounding. This is speculated to be either the fire horn (appropriate if the plane is on fire) or the fuel horn (turned off because the plane was on fire).
8. This was an extremely experienced, careful, conservative pilot who did NOT take risks and had too much time on type/with PT6 engines to make a stupid mistake.

Regardless of what any official report might say, people who knew Martin well know that this accident was caused by something catastrophic happening to the aircraft that rendered it unflyable with no time to do very much about it.

And before people get on their soap boxes about the PT6 - it is statisically an extremely reliable, well-built, and highly appropriate engine. You only have to watch in Africa how much abuse these engines take from slipshod maintenance, pilot ineptitude, crass handling, and SOPs that deliberately go against the manufacturers specific recommendations to know just HOW good it really is. Don't give a dog a bad name. The PT6 is a great engine, but no matter how great it might be, how idiot proof and how well-made - it will, one day after years of abuse finally let go.

This accident needs to be looking at the cause - not the result.

I haven't a clue who poor old Martin was (RIP) so disregard him in what follows. The line ( Had too much time on type/with PT6 engines to make a stupid mistake.) is really a bit of a fate tempter isn't it? How can a pilot have too much experience not to make a stupid mistake? The mistake just becomes, inevitably, more incongruous.

And while I'm on a roll, I'd like to consider what would actually make a bush plane seeing as there is some strong opinions about it on this thread... Let's see

Something rugged
Dependable
Simple to fly
Economic to buy, operate and run
Under the ATP bracket for pilot/insurance costs
Widespread/well known so pilots aren't an issue to get
Proven/established manufacturer with parts/spares/training backup
Large enough to take a group of say one or two tour buses full,
Lots of luggage compartments for ease of storage
Capable of easily being converted from cargo to passenger configuration
Tough, fixed gear for rough runways, and to avoid rebuild costs on gear-up landings
Large tyres for soft surfaces - easy wheel/tyre change capability for punctures
Tricycle gear to eliminate ground loops/inept tail wheel pilots/inadvertant runway departures
IFR equipped with optional aircon/icing/floats/skis/glass cockpit capability
High wing to avoid small trees/shrubs/fence posts etc on narrow runways
18" or more prop clearance to get over uncut/long grass
Landing/take off in approximately 750-800m
Range to do at least 1000nm or 7+ hours
Airstair door for disabled/elderly/immobile passengers
Roomy cabin with good visiblity for sightseeing
Slow approach/lift off speeds
Currently in production
Non-pressurised for economic/pratical/weight reasons
Capable of long cruises, or very short hops

I think that's pretty much all of my wish list. I wonder how many planes can fit the bill.....??:confused::ok::=

Featured here as well?

Flight planning for dummies – the work before flying « PC: A twist of life

The point is that I absolutely don't believe Martin made a mistake. And how can it be tempting fate when the absolute worst has already happened?

There are a lot of pilots in this vicinity who have been poorly trained, are badly motivated, have little pride in what they do, think they're heroes because they've got away with mistakes, think the little GPS box in front of them is going to get them out of all trouble, believe they are immortal and that whatever happens its never their fault etc. And then there is someone like Martin who was none of the above. He was experienced. He was careful and WAAAY more than most pilots, checked and double checked what he was doing in a cockpit and why.

Plausible scenario is that something went bang in the engine, flames in the cockpit, turned fuel off, called mayday, turned less than 20 degrees off runway heading towards any available clearing, attempted to land. No power/not much controls/possibly a lot of unbearable heat/flames/fumes/smoke in cabin and clipped a tree tearing the wing off and ... the rest is history.

Ok Guys you will need to sort this out your self’s
My experience with CAA in Gaborone was with A2- HDB owned by Derrick Brink on the day flown by PAT P (Rip).
With NO doubt Pat took off in the new S333 from KASAC flew over the Air Botswana 146 and crashed near the BDF hanger about 1 min flight.
I saw it; it was on FIRE after 30ish seconds - after the crash PAT told Brett one of the last to speak to him “check the Fuel Cap”
You will not find this info any place – but fact is that in position ‘but’ UN locked fuel cap - will let fuel on the S333 flow direct to the partial separator – then into & around the engine. ( BANG )

SO THE PT6 – Per Hr and sector has in last 2 years more problems in Maun (Bots) than normal around the world?? Why.
The Caravan that uses the PT6 the same??

I don’t know the Cessna 208 well and not saying all 3 are related, but normally if a PT6 goes bang it’s just an engine failure not a Fire.

On this one I would love a good look at the maintenance records.

Not to be overly digressive but I rather thought that the S333 was a helicopter powered by a Rolls Royce gas turbine engine?
Perhaps and in general rather than specific terms, problems in Maun are in reality often connected with weight and balance. You know, the weight of experience balanced against the trickiness of the tasks that have to be accomplished?

DHC6 Twotter is the only thing that comes close, you will probably have to join the waiting list for a nice new -400 though.

Yeah... I'd thought of a twin otter but its only just resurrected from the ashes, with what is in effect a new company. Two engines make it quite a bit more expensive than its nearest rival with overhaul costs etc, and neither can they produce them as fast as their competitor. And this African idea of making them two crew ops also adds to the basic running costs, training costs, and hassles with getting pilots capable of flying them. And the rudder tiller makes it a little non-standard compared with the basic set up of aircraft controls.

So all in all it still just doesn't stack up to the other contender. Bush plane or not.

"Regardless of what any official report might say, people who knew Martin well know that this accident was caused by something catastrophic happening to the aircraft that rendered it unflyable with no time to do very much about it. "


Foxcotte, I knew Martin very briefly, but know the operator. While I am inclined to agree with your statement above to a point, all operators of Caravans in Maun limit the load to pilot + 10 out of Xaxanaka. There is a reason for this. Even with a full load, on a winter morning it can be hairy in a van.

So, 1 extra pax on board, midday October, the hottest month of the year - it's not ideal, more so if there was a mechanical failure of some sort, because he would have had to nurse that plane into the air in the first place.

The unfortunate thing about this incident, is your further comment
"1. Martin had just resigned from Moremi because he wasn't happy with their operations."
Perhaps this may also have clouded his judgement of taking such a heavy load, and just "getting the flight done" or perhaps have had some effect on his thought process, we all know how stress can affect us all.

I really do hope CAAB take your comment in to account with investigation, the company has had quite a few accidents over the last 3 years - clearly something is not right.

Tango24, it is inaccurate, ill informed statements that you have just made that leads me to believe that you were the idiot providing quotes for that ridiculous examiner article..
And equally so, idiotic ideas you are spouting that tarnish a good mans reputation.
Firstly, 11 out of Xakanxa is done by most operators, in fact I have been on board with 12+1. (with a different operator)

Secondly, to imply that, because Martin had resigned, he would have been careless is clearly the comment of a small minded, petty individual. You say you knew Martin? If that was truly the case, you would know that he was always the professional, and as he had resigned, less inclined to take unnecessary risks (what were they going to do, if he had an issue with weight, fire him?

Lastly, whether there were 2 or 11 on board, if the plane had an engine failure, which all statements lead to, his options, in that situation still were limited.

I think you hit the nail on the head there MWOMP...unfortunately I dont know Martin so I cannot comment on that side of your post.

The aeroplane took off and cleared the tree's (by a considerable margin) so regardless of the load it was physically able to fly. There was then a power loss so regardless of the load the flight was clearly going to end badly.

Why do some ass-fly's always go on and on about weight when it clearly isn't a factor?

Just putting that out there

All of which leads to the potential conclusion that CAA/Botswana should legislate the following.

1. All flights for hire and reward in Botswana airspace to be conducted in twin engined aircraft scheduled in Performance A.
2. Load sheets and flight plans to be filed or SMSd to CAA/Gaberone before departures for all flights for hire or reward.
3. Minimum requirements for Captain to be ATPL acceptable to or issued by CAA/Botswana.
4. Minimum requirement for First Officer to be CPL + IR acceptable to or issued by CAA/Botswana.

The Cessna 208 does very nicely in the heat of California with endless tarmac to sustain its breathless charge to an acceptable rotation speed but perhaps
the DC6 or a Beech 200 with high flotation gear would be the better options for these mad bush dashes down the dust so redolent of Balaclava, October 25th, 1854?

Keep trying. Eventually you'll convince yourself.

Hahahahaha because yes you right, about everything, always and forever SRT. :ok: Well done. Shame.

Oooh, must be the voice of experience speaking there. Try not to dig your hole any deeper.

Look up the word sciolist some time.