Inverloch 337 Report

[Mick.B]

Final report released. Well worth the read.

200707039 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/AAIR/aair200707039.aspx)

[DanArcher]

Interesting read as you say,

Prehaps more time should be allocated to IF during the ppl training & also for BFR's......... :confused:

as common sense is not so common

[Mick.B]

Im the first to admit I have never heard of the 180 degree back door procedure option when flying coastal. Then again I hope I would never put myself or loved ones in that position.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Prehaps more time should be allocated to IF during the ppl training

So who is the bunny responsible for reducing what used to be the requirement?

Dr :8

[Howard Hughes]

The last time I flew VH-CHU (which I admit was a very long time ago), it had a reasonably good Cessna 400 series autopilot. The simplest thing for VFR pilots to do if they get into IFR, is turn on the autopilot and climb to a safe altitude!

[the wizard of auz]

m the first to admit I have never heard of the 180 degree back door procedure option when flying coastal.

almost one of the first things I was taught. As far as I know, it is still taught as standard procedure when encountering unintended instrument conditions.
Happy to be corrected though.

[mostlytossas]

I agree with that HH. In my view and while not condoning VFR flight into known non VMC ,if you do get caught unexpectantly, the best two things you can have to save you is an auto pilot and a GPS. The former to do the flying and the latter to tell you where you are and how to get away from it so you can descend safely over flat country or water.

[Jabawocky]

FTDK....:ok: And why every VFR BFR should include some IF checking, not to encourage SIFR but to check them out, and also show its not as easy as it might seem.

HH.... Agreed and not sure if they had a G296 or similar to use, but in that scenario, engage the A/P and fly at 1000 off the coast and follow the map with the heading bug, and call ATC for help. Not likely to hit any Tall Ships, nor any IFR a/c either. Probably another few miles it was VMC again.

Of course if over steep rising country you had best hope you can outclimb any high density objects :uhoh:.

Easy for us to say from the comfort of our longes, but that is exactly what I would be doing if I managed to get myself in that pickle.

J

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Hmmmmm! Interesting!

The FLIGHT ASSESSMENT FORM in Appendix C of that report says that for an IFR flight with a assessment score of "More than 15" the action should be "Don't go"!


I ran the numbers for a flight that I do regularly in the FTDK (eg Townsville-Toowoomba).

Total Score = 20

Oh dear!

Dr :8

[Chimbu chuckles]

You wanna try applying app C to a typical bush sector in PNG...then do 10-20 sectors in a day, 6 days a week:uhoh:

The answers have always been the same...cubic gasoline and an escape route/plan b.

The first CP I ever worked for said to me on day 1...as soon as you lean forward in the seat and go :confused: turn around.

Within the context a private operations flown by a PPL holder it seems to me that the divide between pure VFR and highly desirous/requiring an IR is a performance issue.

VFR is the domain of lower performance home built aircraft, Tiger Moths,Piper Cubs, smaller Cessnas/Pipers. By the time you're talking C210/A36 let alone C337/C310/B55/B58 etc you're talking a serious 'going places' aeroplanes...should they be flown by non instrument rated pilots?

Clearly there are VERY few ways to stop a VFR PPL with sufficient funds buying any damn aircraft he wants..except insurance coverage.

It is becoming more common in the US and I cant see it not happening here sooner rather than later...that is a current IR being a requirement of coverage...or at least the premium delta being inordinately in favour of Instrument Rated pilots...sufficient to ensure the initial/recurrent IR training is WAY cheaper than the extra insurance premium. Annual documented proof of qualifications/currency required for renewal.

This would likely remove this class of aircraft further from the grasp of the average PPL renter but so what? Precious few, and fewer every year, of these aircraft are available on line anywhere these days anyway.

There could be no argument that this chap couldn't afford an IR. If he was rated and current would he have been scud running along a beach?

Even if he/she decided that was the only option...no IAL procedure at desto for instance...at least when it turned to terminal poo instead of trying a visual turn at dot feet with no horizon you go on the clocks, turn to a safe heading and climb out...and the skills exist to do that safely...as opposed to turning in over the beach and hitting a tree/hill/power lines/mobile phone tower...or the beach...a strip of sand/trees in low vis does not a horizon make...good one ATSB...again:rolleyes:

[Wally Mk2]

'Chimba' some good thoughts there in yr post.

I notice in the report that the pilot was most likely out of whack with the W&B at T/off, this is an unhealthy sign that the PIC wasn't too concerned about rules & regs pertaining to the A/c limitations even before he got airborne, what about his own decision making (re WX) limitations? They too where no doubt questionable. Was it that he simply didn't know due lack of experience? Seems odd as he had endorsements for heavier A/C than the C337 & had several 1000's of hrs aeronautical experience. Don't forget we all have been in the same situation re experience levels, no one is born with experience.
I wonder if such airframes should only be allowed to be flown by IFR rated drivers, would this fix this type of situation? I doubt it. Often IFR drivers are tempted more so to 'go have a peek' than say a VFR driver. Obviously this is not the case every time but being IFRr rated doesn't guarentee anything. This guy simply shouldn't have alowed himself to be there in the first place, the burning question now is what lured a qualified licensed pilot albiet with low hrs on type but that was more a handling issue not a wx related decison making issue to not have an out & get suckered in?

We've seen this time & time again, can we all learn from such events? do we? Rarely sadly:sad:

Interesting reading just the same.

Wmk2

[mostlytossas]

I agree with that Wally 2. I certainly would not like to see the type of aircraft a pilot could fly based on the licence or rating he held. After all many VFR pilots just don't need an IFR rating along with all the expense of staying current etc. I know of one well known aerobatic pilot who can fly the backsides off most of us who doesn't hold one for the above reason, not to mention the dozens of instructors in the same boat.
If that sort of thing started occuring what next? All IFR flights must be 2 crew? No passenger carrying IFR except high capacity RPT? It would never end.
The guy made a poor judgement with tragic consequences, we can all learn from this and hopefully not repeat it but at least he did that himself against the rules. Unlike the tragic fatality at 2RN where the pilots were following the procedure for entering a GAAP laid down by the regulators years ago and in my view unwittingly creating a dangerous situation just waiting to happen.

[Classic Dick]

One of my mates down in Oz has recently just passed his PPL and is now into his CPL studies and flying training. He did a CRM course with this (http://www.walkercrmlogic.com/) mob last year and reckoned it was very good value. A lot of info on decision making and how to plan flights safely as a VFR pilot.

Got him thinking outside the "square", if you like.

[DanArcher]

After all many VFR pilots just don't need an IFR rating along with all the expense of staying current etc.

I guess we have to ask ourselves how much is my life worth & the lives of my passengers? for the sake of a 'few' thousand dollars even if you don't get a rating just the extra training may keep you & pax safe should the **** hit the fan & things start looking a little pear shaped :ooh:

We're never going to prevent all preventable accidents because humans are far to good at being stupid.

What I find gets most people thinking is the possibility that they through their own actions may have to live knowing they've killed someone they love. Generally I find humans are more conserned about loved ones than they are about themselves, so I think it's a good way to get pilots (esp ppl holders that don't fly to oftern) to think about having extra training even if they don't think their likely to use it more of a just in case.


Would be interesting to see CASA run a tactful campain on the issue, prehaps going as far as to mail out info directly to the higer risk pilots (ppl day vfr's?) They could really hammer home the point of training & recurrent training to keep pilots family and friends safe.

:8

[Wally Mk2]

'mostly' perhaps more training is needed for VFR drivers in the art of staying alive when caught in bad wx. Wouldn't hurt but the gray area there would be how much extra training in basic IFR skills would be suitable?
............................We're never going to prevent all preventable accidents because humans are far to good at being stupid.............
'danarcher' this is so true, this I see all too often:sad:


Wmk2

[mostlytossas]

I think it is more than a few thousand dollars when you consider all of the costs for a rating that is rarely needed in most parts of the country providing your flying is private and you have the luxury of flying on the days you want to. Consider the initial rating as a starting point, then there is the need to fly IFR rated aircraft to use it which is extra cost again (if you can find one.) The need to stay current and the cost of doing the renewals etc. For a private pilot the cost becomes prohibitive and all you achieve is to drive people away from the industry.
I think there is a better way ie NVFR rating which gives you some extra training and the appreciation of the dangers of flying non VMC and hopefully prevents pilots from trying it, plus the NVFR is more useful to most PPL's anyway as it gets dark every day but not IMC every day.
Another good idea is to buy a flight sim program to run on your computer so you can practice. None of the above is intended to get pilots to go fly IFR but might just save their behinds if they should unexpectedly get caught in it.

[Grogmonster]

Why is it that almost every time this unfortunate situation occurs that the gear and flap are firmly tucked up and the aircraft impacts at high speed?????

All of my peers have always taught me that in ANY situation pull the power levers back, conserves fuel, get approach flap out, and in some cases put the gear down. These three simple actions just open up a whole heap of extra options.

So to all the guys out there who feel inclined to push the envelope, when it turns to crap, slow down. You will be amazed how it helps. Also as someone stated above, if you are even thinking something is not right follow your gut feeling, retreat, and live to fly another day.

As I say, "there is too much beer left in the fridge". Don't waste it Live to drink it.

[DanArcher]

mostlytossas, as you say it's more than a few thousand but what I was getting at, even $3k of IF experience (keeping in mind it doesn't have to be in a IFR cat A/C just a hood & instructor will do the job) is approx 12hrs in a 172 or simmilar which more than likely has the required instruments but isn't maintained in the IFR cat, most likely the 337 was like that, all the bells & whistles but not in IFR cat.

12hrs IF will give you a much better chance of living to tell the tale than the required 2hrs IF for the ppl.

Remember there is the option of the PIFR these days which only requires 20hr IF (off the top of my head) & you can add approaches you wish, eg just have a NDB or GPS etc. A lot of guys with CIR's that I know also have PIFR's because the recency requirements are nothing like that of the CIR so if they're not current on an approach with the CIR they can do the approach under the PIFR & get current for the CIR

[VH-XXX]

Frustrating part about this crash was that aside from a small amount of seafog and cloud activity in that area the weather was perfect everywhere else. I was flying around nearby and was really surprised to hear that a plane was lost nearby in bad weather :(

[Jabawocky]

So true XXX........... sure he went IMC and lost it, but in a very small time frame.

A/P and 1000' over water..........and pop out saying Geez what a dill I just was.

Slow down and the Vis out the window gets a whole heap better, also allows for better decission making process due less happening so fast. Able to use all available resources.

Wally, I am all for more training and practice, and I do it, but it may encourage some to start being too brave! I think best to equip folk with the skills to get out after a short oops rather than enough to encourage them further in. I know I have been into clag and turned around without fear of losing it...... but proceed head on I may not have been so happy.

J:ok:

[Iceberg92]

I whole-heartedly agree that the best "first move", when the weather is getting a bit marginal is to slow down, stick out some flap and give yourself some time, give yourself a chance to see and think.

Simple mathematics and the old "V" squared rule applies all of the time in our game and that includes reducing our survivability chances at the same rate if it does all turn to putty. Every 10 knots you add to your speed reduces your survivability chances by 100 fold if you are unlucky enough to hit something.

Having said that we recently saw an instrument rated Aussie with 12,000 plus hours in the book take out himself and all but one of his pax in a situation that appears very much to be a classic VFR in IMC CFIT in British Columbia. Please try and learn from his mistake guys and girls.

Reality, I guess is, that we as humans are complicated creatures and we certainly are bloddy slow learners but one thing that Bob Tait did etch in my brain in indellible ink was the "V" squared rule and I wonder how many other schools really make the point.

In the GA commercial realm I suspect there are at least 2 combined forces in play; the students that didn't listen too well, they just want hours and know they are bullet-proof anyway, and quite probably employers, inadvertantly or otherwise are applying too much pressure to kids.

Ice

[Sunfish]

First comment is that loss of situational awareness over water is a well known phenomenon, you can even get it taking off from Point Cook if its a grey winter day with no wind and no horizon.

Second is that the weather near the Prom and Liptrap is different, the low cloud of which you speak is "sea wrack', and you can get it anywhere near the sea, but it sort of jumps out at you down there, as I found once on a "Scenic" around Wilsons Promontory.

As for holding an IFR ticket, that requires a whole new layer of commitment in my opinion, and I agree that anything twin engined need an IFR pilot. Cirrus is maybe a grey area (no pun intended).

As for increasing the amount of IFR training for us PPL's, there is a school of thought that says a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and too much training could entice some people into pushing on when they should turn back...

A tragedy all the same.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

As for increasing the amount of IFR training for us PPL's, there is a school of thought that says a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and too much training could entice some people into pushing on when they should turn back...

Sometime back before I learnt to fly (ie pre-1973) I believe the IF requirement for a Restricted PPL (RPPL) was 3 hours, with no additional IF requirement for an unrestricted PPL (PPL).

By the time I did my training it had been increased to 5 hours for a PPL by adding and additional 2 hours IF training as "Nav 5". My understanding is that that came about as a response to an increase in "continued flight by VFR pilots into non-VFR conditions" incidents.

Now it is 2 hours total for a PPL!

Does anyone recall when that change came about and what was the rationale behind it?

What are the IF requirements for a CPL these days? Used to be that a Ngt VMC rating was a prerequisite for a CPL, but I understand that is no longer the case.

I don't have any figures but my perception is that these "continued flight into IMC" incidents are on the increase (again ?).

Dr :8

[DanArcher]

For a cpl these days all you need is 10hrs IF, although you'd prolly be silly not to consider doing the 10hr night rating before looking for that first job

[Wally Mk2]

I guess adding extra IF training thru PVT & onward to CPL would enhance ones chances of survival should they become disorientated. But there has been a zillion books written on loss of control due not believing yr instruments. There's been many IF rated pilots that simply (for want of a better word) flew into the ground in a perfectly serviceable A/C beacuse more than likely they didn't want to react to what their instruments where telling them. Extra IF training would help, but will it stop this from happening again? nope. This tragic event was a culmination of serveal factors but what ultimately took their lives was insufficient ALT to correct loss of control.


Wmk

[Clearedtoreenter]

Now it is 2 hours total for a PPL!


Agreed Doc, its now pitifully small and whatever they say, its really not that difficult to teach a PPL to keep a plane right way up and point somewhere its not going to hit anything if/when they do get caught out. 'Keep clear of cloud, go down, go down.' is fine until they go down a bit too far. Turning around is not necessarily much help either when that nice blue sky behind has dissappeared.

[Dog One]

No matter how much IF training you give a person, unless they keep current, they will never maintain proficiency. The VFR into IFR into terrain accident has been with us since aviation began. Its the mind set (education)to be able to judge the conditions and turn back when VMC doesn't exist.

[bushy]

Government agencies can help make it safer by reducing the ammount of sky that is restricted or military airspace and making the controlled airspace more user friendly.
VFR aircraft pilots are faced with very restricted routes unless they are prepared to make thier flying much more complex. I remember when the western lane of entry to Moorabbin had an upper limit of 2000ft, and there was a restricted area with an upper limit of 1700ft. So we had two way traffic going through a 300 ft slot.
More class E airspace might help, and simplification of everything is urgently needed. Sure you can get clearences, but many will not as they have a mindset that controlled airspace is only for the sacred airline and military aircraft and if you fly there you have to be a superman. This mindset must change to reduce the ammount of scudrunning that happens. Dangerous scudrunning is often considered preferable to getting a clearance to fly in controlled airspace.
We should concentrate on reducing the restricted airspace and also making it more friendly so that the negative mindset changes. And the scudrunning reduces.
But our government agencies will not. They cannot make money out of it.

[Dog One]

There doen't appear to be any restricted airspace at Inverloch.

[Stationair8]

I would have thought currency might have the main issue plus the pressures of flying unfamiliar aircraft.

Could be another case of the old quick endorsement done by the ace instructor with 3/10ths of **** all experience on the type and all done within the YMMB circuit area?

The old C337 is a pretty stable beast, put out the first stage of flap and the wheels and you slow it back to a C172 speed and stooge along okay.

A couple of posters on this forum have a fair bit of time in C337's in bad weather conditions and operating low level over Bass Strait.

[VH-XXX]

No matter what level of experience you have you don't have many options at 50 ft off the ocean.

Yet again this crash was 100% avoidable by heading inland and away from the sea fog as there was no requirement to be in that location for the purposes of the trip. That clearly didn't happen and the ultimate price was paid.

Perhaps the Human Factors training can't come soon enough.

[the wizard of auz]

I seem to remember if you were slow in the pushimnpullyu, and you threw the gear out it was worth nearly ten knots with them big clamshell doors in the breeze. certainly not what you would want when your in the shnot,low and already slow while turning steeply. quite eye opening when unfamiliar with the type.:eek:

[Flying Binghi]

To me, this is the key if ya plan a little coastal scud running -

From the investigation - Weather-related risk management tools. (extracts, pp 11, 12)

- make decisions early - when in doubt, turn about

- slow the aircraft down in precautionary mode to give more time and reduce the radius of turn

When flying over water, always keep the shoreline in sight, but leave yourself enough room to make a I80-degree turn toward it if the visibility ahead of you drops below minimums. By turning toward the shore, you always will have a visual reference to help you maintain altitude. If you turn away from the shoreline, you'll instantly be confronted with a featureless, gray void. You'll have nothing by which to judge your altitude or the airplane's attitude.

[Arnold E]

Does anybody know if the auto-pilot was servicable in this particular aircraft?

[bushy]

This pilot obviously thought there was a reason to be scud running along the coast.
I believe the australian system encourages scud running by making the alternatives complex and appearing to be difficult. We are taught this from the beginning. The industry fiercely objected to the PIFR.
It is hard to do much flying in the australian system without being exposed to scud running, and this can easily become a habbit. I believe it does very often become a normal practise.
It appears that this pilot had spent 8.3 hours in that aircraft, most of which was endorsement training. I would not call that a "quickie" endorsement,

[werbil]

I have reproduced the complete text of the section of C. Marin Faure's book 'Flying a Floatplane' (3rd edition) below that the ATSB report extracted it's 'turn towards land' from. I have added emphasis to a number of statements which I beleive resulted in the loss of the author's context as a result of short extract used by the ATSB.
FLYING FLOATS IN LOW WEATHER
Low-weather flying, or "scud running," is as po­tentially dangerous in a floatplane as it is in a landplane. Continued flight into marginal VFR or IFR weather conditions is the single greatest cause of general aviation accidents. Never allow your­self to be pressured into flying in weather you're not sure you can handle; however, there are times when low-weather flying can be accomplished in relative safety if you follow a few basic guidelines(Fig. 21-10).
Always fly within reach of a body of water large enough to land on. the protected waters of Washington's Puget Sound, the Inside Passage to Alaska, and the lake country of northern Min­nesota, Manitoba, Ontario, and Quebec are exam­ples of areas where your flight will probably carry you over more water than land. The advantage of being over or near water is that should the ceiling really start coming down, you'll be able to land quickly and wait until the situation improves. Ob­viously, the water you're flying over will have to be smooth enough to land on. Water covered with swells or the open ocean are as inhospitable to your floatplane as dry land, and you should think twice before attempting to cross them in marginal weather. The greatest hindrance to visibility along the coasts of British Columbia and southeast Alaska is fog. Fortunately, the presence of fog usually indicates an absence of wind, so the water is generally smooth enough to land on, unless it's exposed to ocean swells. Don't fly over unfamiliar territory in low­ weather conditions. Patches of fog or mist can hide the terrain around you, and if you don't have a good mental picture of the area, you can easily become disoriented. When flying over water, al­ways keep the shoreline in sight, but leave your­self enough 'room to make a l80-degree turn toward it if the visibility ahead of you drops below minimums. By turning toward the shore, you al­ways will have a visual reference to help you maintain altitude. If you turn away from the shore­line, you'll instantly be confronted with a feature­less, gray void. You'll have nothing by which to judge- your altitude or the airplane's attitude. The chances are good that you'll stall the plane or en­ter a spiral dive, but you'll have no idea what's happening until a wall of water suddenly explodes through the windshield.
If the visibility drops to less than two miles, slow down. Give yourself an additional margin above a stall by lowering the flaps to their normal takeoff position, and slow-flying along the shore. By reducing your speed, you'll have time to react if a rocky bluff suddenly looms out of the mist ahead of you or if you see that you're going to fly into a fog bank.
A very dangerous weather condition is cre­ated when rain starts falling in an area where the temperature and dewpoint are very close together. A mile or so in front of you, the rain might obscure the horizon, but you'll have no problem following the shoreline beside your airplane. The danger oc­curs when fog forms in the rain. The fog up ahead will look just like the rain, so you'll have no idea it's there. Then, bang! You'll be in it, and your vis­ibility will drop instantly to zero. The shoreline you've been following will disappear, and you'll have no visual reference to help you turn the plane around. If the atmospheric conditions along your route are conducive to weather like this, be very, very careful. It might be better not to fly at all.
Low-ceiling weather tends to concentrate air traffic, so turn the landing lights on and keep a sharp eye out for other aircraft. You never know when someone might come barreling out of the mist toward you, so be prepared to take evasive action if another airplane should suddenly appear.
Keep an eye on what's going on behind you. I can't imagine a worse situation than being forced to turn around by fog or low clouds, only to find that it's socked in behind you, too. If you do find yourself in this situation, the best solution is to pull the power off and land, assuming the water beneath you will permit this. Once you're safely on the water, you can beach the plane and wait for the weather to improve, or you can shut the engine down and drift. Be careful that you don't drift right along with the bad weather.
If your problem is a local fog bank, and you know there is better weather on the other side, you can land and taxi your plane until the visibility im­proves to the point where you can take to the air once again; however, keep an eye on the engine temperature gauges. Some planes will overheat if they're taxied for a long time, so you might have to shut down occasionally to let the engine cool off. Also keep in mind that taxiing for long dis­tances on the water will throw a monkey wrench into your fuel consumption calculations, and you might need to refuel sooner than you had planned. Unless the conditions are absolutely ideal, don't taxi on the step. You won't be able to stop or turn quickly enough to avoid a collision if a boat or a floating log appears suddenly in your path. If you do step-taxi, watch those temperature gauges.
If the water is too rough for a safe landing and you can't go back, the next alternative is to climb. As long as there is fuel in its tanks, your floatplane is safest in the air. If you've received sufficient training to allow you to climb, cruise, turn, and descend on instruments, you might be able to climb above the fog or low clouds to better visi­bility above. Once you're there, try to establish contact with a flight service station or an air route traffic control center for assistance in establishing your position and setting a course for an area with better visibility. This is an emergency situation, and it emphasizes the importance of sticking to familiar territory when flying in low weather. If you don't know exactly where you are, and you don't have a good mental picture of the terrain that sur­rounds you, you could climb blindly ahead into the side of a hill. You'd be better off trying to put the airplane d.own in the fog even if the water is rough. Your chances of surviving a capsizing are better than your chances of surviving a head-on collision with a mountain.


Offshore I have experienced conditions where there is no definite horizon and the sky blends into the ocean even though it is legally VMC. On one occassion that stands out there was 15km+ visibility due haze and over a 3,000 foot cloud base in the early afternoon but no horizon.

Glassy water, certain rain sizes falling on water can deceive even experienced seaplane pilots in regard to both height perception and aircraft attitude (interference with ability to discern a horizon).

The risk of disorientation is high when scud running over water, particularly where the pilot does not have the experience or training to recognise some of the unique illusions and threats that this practice creates.

[Clearedtoreenter]

If you turn away from the shoreline, you'll instantly be confronted with a featureless, gray void. You'll have nothing by which to judge your altitude or the airplane's attitude. Except an AI and Altimeter.


If you've received sufficient training to allow you to climb, cruise, turn, and descend on instruments, you might be able to climb above the fog or low clouds to better visi­bility above. Once you're there, try to establish contact with a flight service station or an air route traffic control center for assistance in establishing your position and setting a course for an area with better visibility.

'Suffiicient training' is not a black art, nor is maintaining sufficient proficiency and is far more sensible than trying to navigate in a 'featureless gray void'. All very well to be taught to turn around BEFORE you get there, but these CFIT accidents just go to show how many get caught out with no options left. A little more I/F training and training when to recognse an emergency when I/F is appropriate, would open another potential option. The PIFR is a still better idea.

[bushy]

I knew two businessmen who bought new, twin engined IFR equipped aircraft. Both died flying VFR in bad weather.
The third, a doctor used to fly his turbo mooney to a remote town to do clincs, and fly home at night. A number of times I urgrd him to get an instrument rating. His reply was he could not spend the time to do it. Fortunately he quit flying and sold his aircraft. He is still with us.
We make instrument flying and controlled airspace flying appear to be far too hard, and this contributes to the number of CFIT's.
I know of an organisattion that has a simulator that just does not get used. Staff just have to spend months writing manuals and ammending things, and have given up. It would be much better if they could use this life saving equipment.

[Wally Mk2]

'CTE' Agree there:ok:. We can all bounce off the walls with ideas, reasons etc as to why this pilot & others like him got very dead but from years of flying IF in lousy wx you need one basic principle to remain alive. I believe it's not so much the training, it's not so much the cost either it's not even the recency as in how current one is it's the very thing that truely saves people in this instance where one gets caught, discipline, without it all the training, money & recency means zip! You can train anybody given enough time/money to obtain a rating but if they don't have either the discipline or the right attitude then the only 'attitude' they will end up having is an inverted one! Discipline also goes with the VFR pilot who doesn't allow himself to get in such an ugly situation.



Wmk2

[werbil]

If you turn away from the shoreline, you'll instantly be confronted with a featureless, gray void. You'll have nothing by which to judge your altitude or the airplane's attitude.

Except an AI and Altimeter.They might prevent spatial disorientation but once the eyes are inside on the dials you'd better be damn sure of exactly where you are otherwise you could easily hit something even harder than water.

I think Wally is spot on about discipline - equally important for all pilots whether VFR or IFR. IMHO it is critical not to keep pushing on until you only have one option left - because if you lose that one you're probably :mad:.

[bushy]

Yes, self discipline is always needed in all aspects of flying.
Low flying of any kind has been claiming lives since flying began.
And we have been telling people not to do it for decades. That hasn't worked either. We can all be "holier than thou" and keep telling people not to do it, but it's already proven that doesn't work.
So is that all we are going to do? Most of our aircraft are equipped with sufficient instruments to allow flight by sole reference to instruments, but most of them are not serviced or "approved" for that purpose, although that is why they were fitted in the first place. The Australian system is not IFR friendly. It's expensive and appears difficult.
Let's hope that some of the new electronics that are being developed will help. Gps is obviously a great thing, although many are using portable ones, and that is considered "naughty". Naughty or not they are in general use and are very helpful. Maybe the new "glass cockpit" systems will help. I think the "synthetic vision" systems will help a lot. If they are readily available and their use is encouraged.