Air West Coast

[Sqwark2000]

Heard a rumour that these guys had an upset with one of their PA31's. Something about short (very short!!) gravel strip, at night possibly ending up in some sort of water based vegetation???

Anyone else heard the same??

Maybe the bretheren are being punished for something?

S2K

[Continental-520]

Sorry, but I've never heard of that, nor have I ever heard of "Air West Coast".

Please elaborate! :)

520.

[fly real fast]

if you believe hard enough... you will stop in time

[tukituki]

According to the local paper the twin was low flying to aviod low cloud and then took the senic route and hit the water,pilot ok. From what I can understand they do like to push the limits so what. Maybe its a "faith" thing

[fly real fast]

I believe... maybe you should too. then you can have multiple wives and its ok to have a dozen kids:ok:

[piontyendforward]

After a news google found this.

Plane crash in West Coast
09 June 2006

An Air West Coast passenger plane crash-landed on the shore of a West Coast lake yesterday afternoon after a wing clipped the lake surface.


The pilot of the twin-engined nine-seater Piper Navajo Chieftain, who was flying alone, escaped uninjured and the plane was slightly damage.

The incident happened at Lake Haupiri, about 50km inland from Greymouth.

Civil Aviation Authority spokesman Bill Sommer said the pilot appeared to have struck problems with low cloud before the accident.

A wing of the aircraft clipped the surface of the lake, he said.

"He ended up putting the aircraft down on the lake shore."

Air West Coast had a private airstrip near the lake where aircraft maintenance was carried out, he said.

The aircraft was same make and type as the plane that crashed near Christchurch in 2003, killing pilot Michael Bannerman and seven Crop and Food Research staff.

Mr Sommer said a full investigation would be carried out on yesterday's crash.

[Cloud Cutter]

Cross my heart and hope to fly................

I wonder how the 228 is coming along?

[haughtney1]

Hmmmmmmmmm pushing the limits in GA, sound familiar?:sad:

[27/09]

Hmmmmmmmmm pushing the limits in GA, sound familiarSomething you have never done eh, Haughtney1

[MOR]

Lol

Yeah some of us resisted the temptation... :rolleyes:

Please raise a glass for all of those who escaped GA without doing stupid stuff. It can be done!

[empacher48]

I had heard they are having trouble filling the Cheif Pilot role (and a few others) to make the Part 125 Certification requirements to operate the new 228. Either sitting idle or only flying with 9 pax at a time...

[haughtney1]

Something you have never done eh, Haughtney1

Damn right, I know my limititations, and as Im a decidedly average pilot, I wouldnt have got to where I am otherwise.

Oh and just so you know 27/09, Ive lost 4 good friends to stupid preventable GA accidents in NZ.....so I have a reasonable basis from which to voice my opinion, how about you?

[ZK-NSN]

The things we do... Very lucky boy indeed, not many people get away with dragging a wing tip across a lake. G.A pilots do tend to push the rules but this champion kicked them out of the park. He really will be a greatful cheftain driver.:rolleyes:

They can have as many "wives" as they want but remember boys, its quality not quantity that counts.:ok:

[27/09]

Haughtney1

so I have a reasonable basis from which to voice my opinion, how about you?

I to have a reasonable basis to voice my opinion, and suspect probably at least as good if not better basis than the average pilot on here.

I think you missed my point. People in glass houses should not throw stones. I would venture to suggest that there is not one pilot on here that has not pushed the envelope in some way or other at some stage of their flying, sadly in some cases some didn't even realise that they were pushing the envelope at the time.

I don't believe that any pilot deliberately sets out to endanger his passengers, him/herself, or their aircraft. However I have had to ground pilots for doing stupid or silly things that either endangered other people or themselves. I bet the dangers didn't occur to them when they did these silly things. I too have been to to funerals of friends lost on GA accidents.

I would also suggest that what one person may consider to be within the envelope others may consider to be outside the envelope.

To finish, your comment seemed to me, to show very much a "holier than thou" attitude. If you can truely hold your hand on your heart and say you have never pushed the envelope then I apologise.

[haughtney1]

To finish, your comment seemed to me, to show very much a "holier than thou" attitude. If you can truely hold your hand on your heart and say you have never pushed the envelope then I apologise.

Far from it, it was meant to convey that I have seen first hand the devastation and angst when guys push thier luck and end up dead.
It riles me beyond belief when I read stories about small operators doing dangerous and stupid things, (far be for me to pre-judge things..but I think you get my drift) because they have limits that dont appear legal.
The whole point of limits is to ensure the safety and security of operators and passengers alike...if they need to be bent or pushed..then they have no business being in business.

As for being "holier than thou" no Im human...:ok:

[IFR4ME]

Haughtney1
"Damn right, I know my limititations, and as Im a decidedly average pilot, I wouldnt have got to where I am otherwise."

Isnt this called experience....living through your own not-so-good choices and learning from watching others choices too.

The biggest problem with GA is the low level of experience in most operations. GA operators are normally tighter for cash and have to deal with all the newbie pilots from the schools who see GA as a 12 month ticket to an airline job.

These pilots are doing harder flying than the highly experienced airline pilot in his 73 with their FMCs, masses of power and another experienced pilot beside him keeping an eye on him.

You are right though...passengers deserve the very best level of safety and security that can be provided.

What is the answer to the GA problem...... :confused:

[haughtney1]

These pilots are doing harder flying than the highly experienced airline pilot in his 73 with their FMCs, masses of power and another experienced pilot beside him keeping an eye on him.

You are right though...passengers deserve the very best level of safety and security that can be provided.

What is the answer to the GA problem......

A couple of things here...Airline flying is more challenging, more mentally taxing (even with 2 crew and an FMC's) than GA flying should be. You are spot on regarding why it is inherently riskier than Airline flying....generally there are lower levels of experience, it has also become apparent (since I started flying airliners) that the safety culture and general attitude towards professional standards and published minima leaves something to be desired. Now don't get me wrong here, I am not suggesting GA pilots are cowboys..or even lacking professionalism, indeed some of the finest aviators I know..still ply their trade in GA, I am suggesting however that GA in New Zealand should be compelled to look at its safety culture..or lack of.

How do we do this?...simple..the CAA needs to become a regulator again, rather than just the toothless facilitator it represents itself to be at the moment.

I earnt my "spurs/experience" in GA in NZ and Oz and I was fortunate enough to operate with one particular individual who taught me more about personal limitations than any legal document could convey...the point being that this person came from an airline environment back into GA...so there is experience about, the question is...will anyone be listening?

[Uncle Chop Chop]

Oh my god it's like a scratched CD on this subject lately. People will always push the limits. Let yourself not be one of these munters. Get over it people.

Faithful Christian the 3rd

[IFR4ME]

Haughtney1
I was refering to the Single Pilot IFR flying that is done at this level of GA as being more difficult. In particular with old aircraft, less-than-perfect avionics and low time pilots. This flying certainly is the pilot melting pot and having been there and done it I know it has its challenges.

It does however put good experience and calibre into the pilots being recruited by the airlines. This experience is valued by the recruiters.

I agree too that the CAA could be far more active and thus useful to operators to improve safety and conformance to industry standards and regulations.

When I was in GA I had some excellent mentoring from ex and current airline pilots who passed on very good advise on personal standards and limitations that is not taught in the schools or during training. It just needs to be more widespread throughout the industry......

[plane_sailin']

Sqwark2000

Heard a rumour that these guys had an upset with one of their PA31's. Something about short (very short!!) gravel strip, at night possibly ending up in some sort of water based vegetation???


Just to straighten the record....heard from an accurate source that the 'strip' was 800 m and sealed. Of course no prob for a PA31. The pilot took off before ECT and did end up 'in some sort of water based vegetation'

There was also some marginal wx involved......

[MOR]

It does however put good experience and calibre into the pilots being recruited by the airlines. This experience is valued by the recruiters.

No it doesn't, and no it isn't.

In fact, it teaches pilots habits and procedures diametrically opposed to those that the airlines require. I have spent more hours than I care to think about, trying to get ex-GA people to operate as part of a crew. Most of them take many hours to get the concept of CRM, and it takes many months on the line to get them to stop trying to do the whole job themselves. And then we get to the complete disregard many of them have for safety and minimas...

In the airlines I have worked for, the vast majority of training failures are ex-GA pilots with over-inflated egos and a general disregard for the concept of SOPs.

There is a good reason that most airlines prefer to recruit cadets... just ask the nice folk at CTC in Hamilton.

[Cloud Cutter]

In general I agree with IFR4ME that airline flying in inherently less difficult than GA, single-pilot IFR.

I agree with MOR that GA experience is not necessarily helpful to an airline recruit. It does seem, however, that the disciplined GA pilot generally has minimal trouble getting into the swing of airline flying, at least in the NZ microsystem. As Haughney1 mentioned, it has a lot to do with knowing, and accepting limitations.

[MOR]

The magic words being "NZ microsystem"...

All experience is good, of course, and I thoroughly enjoyed my GA time. Hard to remember, now that the FMC does all the work and the F/O handles the walk-round when it's raining!

Regarding GA and danger, it isn't so much the pilots, more the pressure pilots are placed under. Take away the commercial pressure and a lot of the risk goes away.

[IFR4ME]

complete disregard many of them have for safety and minimas...

In the airlines I have worked for, the vast majority of training failures are ex-GA pilots with over-inflated egos and a general disregard for the concept of SOPs

You are right MOR, many GA pilots do not give proper regard to SOPs, safety and minimas. This is because when put under the commercial pressure that you mentioned they do not keep to personal limitations that they will not compromise.

This is where I feel experienced airline pilots have so much that they could give back to the GA sector. Many airline pilots started in GA flying around in PA31s and such aircraft, many of which are still flying today. These are the individuals who should have the best understanding of what personal limitations and minimas the GA pilot should set for themselves to keep out of trouble.

You are also right about the over-inflated ego part too. There is no place in GA flying, particularly in the SPIFR area, where a big ego is a good thing to have. These are the pilots who can 'do it better' and have the 'superior skills' and it is because of these faulty notions that some of them do not see old age...

Not all GA operators are 'cowboys' that just push the limits as far as they can. There are some really good operators that will completely support the pilots decision to cancel a flight because of weather or whatever it is.

There are also pilots that are highly disciplined and have learnt where to draw the line.

What I would like to see is a greater imput from the experienced pilots in the industry back into the GA sector to help improve some of the safety culture and lack of procedures that we seem to talk about so much.

How about it?? :)

[MOR]

IFR4ME

How about it??

Believe me, there is nothing I would like better than to do as you suggest. However, there are many hurdles...

CAA - who refuse to recognise a JAA licence that isn't current (unlike Aus), and who are generally obstructive and unhelpful.
The GA operators - who really only want young guys who they can pay very little, will put up with awful conditions, and who will do as they are told.
The aero clubs - who are the same as GA, with the added factor that they are scared of being upstaged by experienced people.
The third-level carriers - who refuse to recognise that experienced captains should not have to go back to the right seat, as the experience they bring is then wasted; and who put in place artificial barriers, such as the Air Nelson "50 hours recent NZ IF" requirement.
The industry in general - which bleats on about the lack of experienced people, particularly in areas like multi instrument instruction, but then refuses to facilitate getting experienced people back into the system.

I have about 10,000 hours, over 9000 of which is airline turboprop and jet time in Europe, and I hold JAA instructional quals. Any use to anyone? Apparently not.

I would love to be able to put something back into GA, but I'm b*ggered if I can work out how! Any ideas?

[Cloud Cutter]

Regarding the 'third level carriers', I think you'll find it's NZALPA that prevents DECs under most circumstances. There is provision for direct entry if there are no internal applicants meeting the requirements. The company always has the right to veto upgrades based on inadequate performance. There are other instances like the recent appointment of Eagle's Line Manager, when outsiders will be taken because of their experience. I seem to recall inviting you to apply at the time MOR :p

[MOR]

NZALPA is a toothless tiger. The airlines could easily get around that by prescribing an experience bar that would justify DECs. Whether they have the will to do so is another matter. Personally I don't think they do, they are far too immersed in the parochial NZ aviation culture.

In the civilised world, people are hired for positions that suit their expertise and experience. Only in NZ do we see such protectionist nonsense (well, maybe in Oz as well).

I would have applied for the Line Manager position, but I have no desire to live in Hamilton - thanks all the same!

[IFR4ME]

MOR
You are right about the barriers to getting foreign experience into NZ GA.

However, I also know of people who have done it. One of my IF instructors was from the UK, he was ex RAF, ex Gulf Air 767 captain, who has retired and has been doing Multi IF instruction at a NZ aeroclub for a few years now. Im not sure what he had to do to get into the NZ system but there is a way that it can be done.

Im sure there could be a better system for it but.....

[MOR]

Yeah I think my main concern is that I'm a Kiwi, not a foreigner, I just gained my experience overseas. Many operators treat you as a leper because you have had the barefaced cheek to jump out of the sycophantic new pilot pool, show a bit of initiative and go work in the busiest (and most interesting) airspace in the world.

You are then penalised because you have not spent five years washing planes for free and sucking up to the Chief Pilot (who in any other first-world country would probably still be an F/O).

I was actually told this by the then Air Nelson Chief Pilot, who explained to me that there was no way he was going to hire a "f*cking queue jumper" when other guys had stayed behind and paid their dues. How quaint. He told me other things, all of them derogatory to my chosen career path, and none of them having anything whatsoever to do with flying skill or character.

After also speaking to the Chief Pilots of other third-level carriers, I soon realised that nepotism is the name of the game in pilot hiring over here. it doesn't matter how experienced or skilful you might be, if you haven't been doing some serious brown-nosing over several years, you ain't going nowhere.

It doesn't really surprise me, having spent twenty years overseas, I have come to realise that, beautiful as the country is, and as "can do" as Kiwis might be, the aviation scene here is full of closed-minded, unimaginative ex-aero club "managers" that wouldn't last two seconds in a more demanding system. Most of them have never flown outside NZ and have no appreciation of aviation outside these shores.

There are one or two exceptions to this, people I have met in CP positions who are genuinely experienced and very "up with it", but they are the exception rather than the rule.

I do a bit of contract flying in Europe these days to keep my hand in, and it always amuses me that there is never any discussion about rank in the contract world. If you are a captain, that is what you are hired as, and no discussion is entered into. Same goes for IRE/TREs, etc. It is a far more enlightened way of working.

Ask yourself this - would IBM/Microsoft/Telecom/TVNZ hire a highly experienced executive, and then put them to work filing papers? Of course not, they recognise the skills and the value of the people they hire, and use them accordingly.

NZ aviation must be one of the last places in the developed world to employ such 19th century hiring practices.

It isn't helped by a pilot culture that is based on some sort of divine right to progression, irrespective of the needs of the operator.