c152 missing between Hamilton and New Plymouth NZ POB1

[dabz]

It's pretty mountainous 35km's west of Te Kuiti and it's now night time.
Hope he ok:eek:

3 News > Home > Story > Search launched for missing plane (http://www.3news.co.nz/News/Search-launched-for-missing-plane/tabid/209/articleID/113431/cat/41/Default.aspx#top)

CLD AREAS SCT ST 1200 DEVELOPING IN EXTREME SW.
AREAS BKN CUSC 2500 TOPS 7000.
AREAS BKN ASAC ABV 7000 SPREADING FM SW THIS AFTERNOON.
WX ISOL -SHRA, WITH SCT SHRA/RA DEVELOPING IN WEST.
TURB OCNL MOD DEVELOPING, MAY BECOME SEVERE, SIGMET
POSSIBLE.
ICE ISOL MOD ABV 6000 DEVELOPING WITH ASAC.
REMARK TROUGH FROM SOUTHWEST VC NZNP 12Z.

[Nikai]

Search on for missing plane | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/2660406/Search-on-for-missing-plane)

[sleemanj]

From the 3 News article:
The beacon has been reportedly found 35km west of Te Kuiti, however there is still no sign of the plane.

I hope that's just bad reporting and they didn't actually find the beacon lying on it's lonesome in the bush :ugh:

[dudduddud]

According to the NZ Herald website, the pilot holds a commercial and is completing an instructor rating.

[Lineboy4life]

Ain't these compulsory newfandango elba's/eperbs suppose to emit via satellite the a/c's lat & long?

Would have thought they'd know exactly where it is and be hovering over it hours ago (wx permitting).

[riseagainst]

Very sad news, hopefully he's alright and will be found.
:(

[Little NOTAR]

Lineboy4life

As you stated, the weather certainly was'nt suitable.

[Water Wings]

Anyone else confused by this?

1850 he is overhead Raglan heading to NP but at 1930 the beacon is activated well inland??

So at night, in average Weather, the plane left the coast and flew inland??

Edit: Just saw the news and see the aircraft was found on the coastline near TT not inland.

[HardCorePawn]

Not good news :(

Pilot of missing Cessna confirmed dead | NATIONAL News (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/pilot-missing-cessna-confirmed-dead-2860801)

Condolences to family and friends...

[Little NOTAR]

My previous weather statement was in regard to flying into the crash site, not the conditions around the time of the crash.

[sleemanj]

Ain't these compulsory newfandango elba's/eperbs suppose to emit via satellite the a/c's lat & long?

Only if it is GPS capable. If it's not, then it's up to doppler triangulation, which give something like a 5km radius area.

Would have thought they'd know exactly where it is and be hovering over it hours ago (wx permitting).

wx was not permitting in this case, they tried several times

[sleemanj]

Picture here:

Police name dead pilot as Ben Israel Gaastra | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2661361/Police-name-dead-pilot-as-Ben-Israel-Gaastra)

[kiwi chick]

Only if it is GPS capable

I'm sure he's referring to the new 406.025 beacons

The 406MHz unit once registered will inform RCC whom the EPIRB, ELT or PLB belongs to and provide an accuracy of less than one square mile versus 1200 square miles.

Quoted from the supplier's website.

Condolences to his family and the NP Aeroclub, this is just awful. :(

[Three Blader]

Codolences to Family and friends
I believe these 406 are obselete shouldnt all aircraft be carrying either TRac Plus or Spider track much superior

[toolowtoofast]

Spidertracks is a privately owned company - it is up to the operator to run it in the plane. It has nothing to do with the ELT

406 is the new standard - you can choose to have one with an external GPS input, at extra expense, otherwise the 406 is just more relaible, and more accurate to home in on, the the 121.5/243 ELT

[Hughesy]

What was a fresh CPL pilot, training for a instructors rating doing flying over pretty rough terrain( or any for that matter), at night in bad weather conditions? To go from North shore to his destination in these unstable weather conditions would be interesting enough during the day let alone in failing light.
Sincere condolances to the pilot, his family and friends and colleagues.

[kiwi chick]

Hughsey I was wondering exactly the same thing, but wasn't sure who was reading this and didn't want to upset anyone.

Will be interesting to hear the outcome. (Apologies to any friends or family, but this is something we can all learn from and lest take heed)

Threeblader - are you a new pilot?

[Massey058]

To be fair he wasn't a 'fresh CPL'. Still the choice to go in those conditions will no doubt be a focus of the accident report.

A very sad state of affairs and all the more real when you actually know the person.

RIP Ben.

[sleemanj]

I'm sure he's referring to the new 406.025 beacons

Getting off topic, but...

406 beacons can be of two types, the first basically just shouts "help". The second uses a GPS feed to say "help, here's where I am".

Without the GPS the position can not be determined as accurately, nor as fast, as it relies on triangulation of the beacon's signal using the doppler shift of the signal as the satellite(s) pass by it. More readings, better accuracy, smaller search area, but it takes valuable time.

The GPS equipped/capable versions are more expensive - but not by much in the scheme of things.

[remoak]

What was a fresh CPL pilot, training for a instructors rating doing flying over pretty rough terrain( or any for that matter), at night in bad weather conditions?

More to the point, why was he doing it at low level, whilst clearly uncertain of his position, and with no radio calls for navigation assistance? It looks to me like CFIT (as no mayday call for a failed engine which you would expect a new-ish CPL studying for an Instructor's rating to have got off).

Being lost at low level in adverse wx is bad enough, but to do it at night...

Yeah, I know, wait for the report... :rolleyes:

[Hughesy]

"To be fair he wasn't a 'fresh CPL'. Still the choice to go in those conditions will no doubt be a focus of the accident report."

Kiwichick: Cheers for PM

Massey058: Anyone who has a just got his CPL and then about to sit their Instructors still makes anyone (fixed or rotary) a pretty green pilot.
I am sorry for your loss, the longer your in this game......the more mates you may see go. I have been to several funerals ranging from super low time to very experienced.

For everyone here, especially newbies, guys/gals getting upto 500-700 hrs and everyone else. Perhaps having the occasional gander at the CAA Fatal Accident reports is a good idea. They are actually a good learning tool and you may learn somthing that could help you avoid an accident later on.

Cheers

Hughesy

[Big Kahuna]

I am sure this was an un-authorised night VFR flight. I very much doubt that the CFI at NP Aero Club would have given the ok for this flight given the weather conditions.

Just because the law does not restrict the distance between lighted aerodromes anymore does not make it a good idea to fly long distance cross country at night VFR.

Night cross country flight should be flown at or above the relevant MSA.

Solid ground can be very unforgiving.

[Massey058]

Fair call Hughesy.

I have flown a few hundred hours in one of the most dangerous flying environments in the world where death is a far too regular occurrence. Death here is not taken nearly seriously enough.

Reading accident reports is just good airmanship, something I hope is instilled in all pilots from the beginning of training.

[Water Wings]

Night cross country flight should be flown at or above the relevant MSA.


Absolutely agree. Places I have worked have always had this rule. If you couldn't go VFR above the applicable area MSA then you didn't go at all.

[riseagainst]

Condolences to Ben's family.
Can't work out why he choose to fly in those weather conditions between Northshore and Np, 40minutes from raglan to tairoa pt.:sad:
Rip Ben

[conflict alert]

Can't work out why he choose to fly in those weather conditions between Northshore and Np, 40minutes from raglan to tairoa pt

but the media from the onset said he was "an experienced pilot", surely that is why the decision was made to fly in such conditions.

shudder the thought if it was someone who went through one of these sausage schools who won't let their pilots fly in vis less than 20km and cloud base below 3000ft thereby teaching them NO experience except they have a commercial licence at the end of it, therefore must be experienced, because their licence says so!!! For f##ks sake.

[ZK-NSN]

Conflict - As most people within the aviation industry are aware, the media dont know ass from elbow.

shudder the thought if it was someone who went through one of these sausage schools who won't let their pilots fly in vis less than 20km and cloud base below 3000ft thereby teaching them NO experience except they have a commercial licence at the end of it, therefore must be experienced, because their licence says so!!!
Im a little confused as to what your trying to say here mate. So a pilot from a sausage factory wouldnt have made it as far as this unfortunate chap did before he / she crashed too?
To an extent, especially with CPL's, experience cant be taught, its gained once your out in the big bad world. A CPL is after-all a licence to learn.
This may sound harsh to those who knew him and premature before a full investigation is completed but it looks as though decision making before he even left the ground is where the wheels came off in this situation. Im not saying he was a bad pilot, but he may have just made some bad decisions in the heat of the moment, someting I have done many times in my GA career but was lucky enough to get away with.
My only hope is that any appropriate lessons are learnt, so that the same thing doesnt happen again.

[remoak]

My only hope is that any appropriate lessons are learnt, so that the same thing doesnt happen again.

That's a pretty forlorn hope, as these types of accidents happen with depressing regularity.

It is really very simple - if you are going to fly VFR at night (or during the day for that matter), be very sure about the weather and your ability to navigate effectively with the tools that you have, if there is ANY doubt, DON'T DO IT. If you MUST do it, stay above MSA until you have positively identified your destination. If you get lost, CALL SOMEONE.

If the flight was approved, then the CFI or whoever approved it should answer some stern questions. If not, well, unless there was a major mechanical failure, it's yet another case of ego/over-confidence/stupidity.

I know that is harsh, and I'm sure the pilot was a nice guy, but until we start calling these accidents what they are, safety will forever be compromised.

[Three Blader]

no a 13000 hr fosil

[riseagainst]

Not approved

[ZK-NSN]

Remoak - sad but true.

[donkey123]

[QUOTE]
but the media from the onset said he was "an experienced pilot", surely that is why the decision was made to fly in such conditions.


This is an interesting statement conflict. Like ZK- NSN, I am not too sure where you are coming from with this one.

Maybe the "sausage factories" are doing something right if one of thier own pilots was presented with that same situation and decided to stay on the ground that night because, like you said it wasn't 3000ft 20kms +???

Something about using your superior knowledge and judgement to not have to use your superior skill.

Remoak - couldn't agree more

There were jets and turboprops diverting everywhere around weather in the vc of pokom that night.

[Water Wings]

I have been told this fellows training up to CPL was done at another training establishment. He moved to NP to do his 'C' Cat.

[conflict alert]

This is an interesting statement conflict

I was being sacarastic. The idea that someone would make a decision to fly a single engine aircraft, at night, VFR, on a x/country into forcast ****e stuns me and can only assume the decision to fly was because he was, as the media lablelled him, "experienced". Hence my sacarasm. My point (perhapes badly written) was that an experienced pilot would in my view have spent the night on the ground. My point about the sausage factories is that because of the self imposed school minima's it is likely that students with their instructors are not flown into adverse conditions and therefore are not shown any techniques in the live enviroment so that when a student PPL or CPL unwittingly gets themselves in trouble at least they have a fighting chance using some of the options available. I think half the trouble is that there are very few career instructors left. Most instructors are hour builders who have been taught by hour builders who have been taught by hour builders and so on. As we all know I could quite easily go from no hours to a CCat in 1 year or less and be teaching with only a few hundred hours under my belt. Where's the experience in that?

[HardCorePawn]

It would appear that his CPL/MEIR was indeed completed elsewhere...

[The Pilot] completed his commercial pilot's licence and multi-engine instrument rating at Massey University's school of aviation earlier this year and was well known to many staff and students according to its general manager.

[remoak]

Conflict Alert

Absolutely right, it is usually the blind leading the blind when it comes to instructors these days. There are a few older, wiser heads around but not nearly enough of them. It is one of my pet gripes that when those of us that have many years experience, including airline-level check and training, seek to get back into some instructing, we are greeted with a bureaucratic nightmare that not only costs a fortune and takes a long time, but is completely unnecessary. And this at a time when the CAA admit that the experience pool in the instructor population is way too shallow. How about making it a bit easier for us to give something back into the system?

If you went to one of the sausage factories, it is perfectly possible, even likely, to be instructing other CPL hopefuls when you have never actually seen any bad weather up close and personal. That is just crazy.

I'm glad my own training was different - we used to head out to the LFA when the wx was down to 1000'/3km. Only way you ever really learn just what bad wx looks like.

[AutopilotEngage]

Rest In Peace

[Hughesy]

remoak

I fully agree with you on weather. It is much better to go out in a "controlled environment" and get used to bad weather rather then have no idea of what to do when you find yourself in the murk.

[NoseGear]

I agree with remoak....so Ill be off to whack my head against a wall shortly:ok::E;) however, he is quite right with regards to the weather training, or lack thereof....in any event, DAY time bad weather avoidance is one thing, NIGHT time weather avoidance is at best total guesswork, and I can't fathom the decision making process that lead this CPL taking off at night, in a C152, over rough terrain into bad TS, rain and deteriorating wx condx. I cant imagine any school, regardless of minimums for bad wx training and reputations, not mentioning the above would be a pretty poor idea. Lets face it, this was nothing more than extremely poor decision making.

As for CAA being a hindrance remoak....surely you jest!!:E

Nosey

[conflict alert]

Remoak

I'm glad my own training was different - we used to head out to the LFA when the wx was down to 1000'/3km. Only way you ever really learn just what bad wx looks like.

I rest my case...you have endorsed what I am trying to say and I hope there are others out there that realise what we are saying.

and Hughesy

[RadioSaigon]

Bloody Nora... just read the updated report. My original impression was of his ETA NP being 1630 Local. The way this thread has developed alerted me to the error in my impression... that's just untidy. Remoak is spot-on with his analysis. The loss of experience, knowledge and ability in the instructor cadre is an issue that the regulators in both NZ and AUS (to my personal knowledge) are aware of and publicly (? within industry anyway...) acknowledge -but they're apparently quite prepared to sit on their fingers and do precisely nothing about it. Darwinism at its most savage? If not quite yet, then surely soon.

Similarly, the reason for the loss of knowledge/experience etc. is readily apparent to the regulator as it is to industry participants. GA pilots doing the "hard yards" in old, poorly equipped and (sometimes) maintained airframes, most of which must be hand-flown 100% of the time VFR and IFR are usually paid less than the pimply 15yo Macca's trainee that hands over the $2.95 burger that probably represents the most nutritious food they can sustainably afford. What a friggin nonsense that is. The regulator however, simply washes their hands of any responsibility to the pilots -beyond making it harder more time consuming and more expensive for them (personally) to meet their regulatory responsibilities. Exactly where did the regulators expect the "I'll fly for free" attitude to wind up? Exactly where it has and will contine to do -until the regulator acknowledges their responsibility to the pilots is the same as their responsibility to ensure the fiscal integrity of the businesses they certificate. Surely you can't be having a fiscally responsible business that doesn't accept their fiscal responsibility to their employees. I certainly can't think of any other business models that would survive like that.

The only way to prevent this sort of thing is to ensure the experienced pilots are encouraged to remain in or return to GA. That means they have to be able to afford to do what they love and they have to be supported by the regulator rather than have the regulator hound them out of industry because of passing some arbitrary number on a calendar -with that number being set by a (medical) profession that can't even get it's own ****e all in the same sock. Too busy playing politics.

<sigh>

/rant_off

:}

[Fark'n'ell]

Most instructors are hour builders who have been taught by hour builders who have been taught by hour builders and so on. As we all know I could quite easily go from no hours to a CCat in 1 year or less and be teaching with only a few hundred hours under my belt. Where's the experience in that?

CA

Totally agree. The ever diminishing circle can only end in a black hole.

[conflict alert]

correct..and it does

[remoak]

As for CAA being a hindrance remoak....surely you jest!!

Lol yep I can't imagine why I thought the Campaign Against Aviation would in any way try to help... the Old Boys Club in Petone is only interested in one thing, themselves...

[sleemanj]

paid less than the pimply 15yo Macca's trainee that hands over the $2.95 burger that probably represents the most nutritious food they can sustainably afford. [...] Exactly where did the regulators expect the "I'll fly for free" attitude to wind up?

I agree, and I think everybody would, that instructors are not paid sufficiently (sometimes, at all) to remain instructors, and that this leads to high proportions of largely inexperienced instructors.

However, I fail to see how this is a problem that a regulator can fix.

It's an international problem, the same all over the world it seems, and if one country's regulator steps in to mandate some sort of defacto minimum wage for flight instruction or other measure (what other measure can there be?), then it would have one effect, drive most schools out of business as students went overseas. This is particularly true here in NZ where I think it's safe to say that most flight schools are largely training foreign students.

The only way regulators could make a real workable difference, is if it's done globally at the ICAO level, of which there is not a hope in hell.

The sad truth is, that it's a problem that probably can not be fixed, not as long as pilots rate themselves so lowly that they will work for absurd low wages and poor conditions in order to hour build. You can't blame schools for minimising expenses, especially not in this economic climate.

I'm sure it wasn't always like this, but the horse has bolted and it's too late to close the gate.

[RadioSaigon]

I fail to see how this is a problem that a regulator can fix...

First, my comments were towards GA as an industry rather than just instructors as a microcosm of that industry.

As a part of the process of certificating any aviation business to conduct that aviation activity, the regulator has a legislatively mandated responsibility to ensure the financial viability of the proposed business. If the proposed business cannot demonstrate the financials to support their business case, no AOC is forthcoming.

How simple would it be for the government to mandate an extension to that via the regulator to ensure that all full-time and/or part-time employees are:


Paid
Paid a mandated minimum rate, and
Paid when they are supposed to beas a part of that already existing certification process. Surely the financial viability of a business that the regulator is already assessing must include the businesses intended, planned and ongoing ability to pay their employees at a level that allows them to support themselves?

I'm not advocating that the regulator become any form of quasi-employee advocate in wage negotiations or anything like that. But if the regulator is doing their job comprehensively at the certification (and renewal) stage, the ability of the business to support all its employees must be a critical part of that assessment.

For decades now the regulators have simply washed their hands of pilot remuneration issues, turning a Napoleonic eye to the "work for free to get hours" generation... they're now reaping the return of that lack of due care and attention. Allowing "market forces" to set remuneration levels as low as $0pa hasn't worked, we can all see the mess that that has created and will continue to create for some time to come. The employers are not of their own free will going to set levels of remuneration at a realistic level; the only solution I can see is for the regulator to step in and set a level below which it is illegal to pay, or lose your AOC. The employers will sit up & pay attention then.

They should have done so 20+ years ago.

[27/09]

it is usually the blind leading the blind when it comes to instructors these days. There are a few older, wiser heads around but not nearly enough of them. It is one of my pet gripes that when those of us that have many years experience, including airline-level check and training, seek to get back into some instructing, we are greeted with a bureaucratic nightmare that not only costs a fortune and takes a long time, but is completely unnecessary

I agree entirely.

But wait there's more, CAA are about to make it compuslory for all flight training to be conducted under a Part 141 certificate, (all in the interest of improving standards you understand). The instructors rating you jumped thru many hoops to get, to allow you to instruct, will be useless unless you have a 141 certificate or work for an organisation that has one. More red tape and expense which will not improve the standard of training.

This is going to drive even more experienced people out of the industry.

What a Crock of S**t.

[conflict alert]

CPL really worth $139,900
Was doing a google search and came across this website www.isea.edu.au (http://www.isea.edu.au/).
Really AUS $139,900, for that you get a CASA/JAR CPL with a Frozen JAR ATPL and a MCC endoresment with a grand total of 200 hours, then on top of that you have to pay for your own Australian ASIC and SPL plus health insurance.??
I am missing somethink here?




see what I'm saying

[haughtney1]

A sad sad tale no doubt, with the usual level of human misery part of the experience..and all completely avoidable.
Those were my thoughts when I read about this incident a couple of days ago, my heart then sank..because like Remoak, I know that the next guy/girl is just waiting in the wings to do the same thing all over again..

I'll go out on a limb here and state that I will be very very surprised to read if this was anything other than CFIT.
What this poor fella was thinking in those last few minutes before it all came unstuck we will never know...but we can probably make an accurate guess.
We can guess because there are plenty of us that have been in similar situations where circumstance dictates we make a decision to save our lives, and there but for the grace of god etc....
Looking back however at my training, and the training of my peers....there appears to be some significant variances with how things are done 17 years later.
Yes "C" cats were still hour building, but "B" cats were far more scarce, and in my experience tended to be lifers' or at the very least ex mil or airline bods, particularly in the provinces..and I certainly benefitted from that knowledge base, it saved my life more than once.
In the years gone by, I've done my fair share of single engine flying in that neck of the woods (I used to have a girlfriend in New Plymouth..and would fly down from Thames often via Te Kuiti) and that terrain scared the living Sh1t outta me on a nice day! why this fella felt the need to be plodding around there at night and in poor weather is frankly beyond me.

[NoseGear]

There are two issues being discussed here, and I dont think they are really wrapped up with each other. One being "WTF was he doing out there that night in those condx" and second "His training, or lack of (add experience of his intructors, pay, CAA negligence etc) contributed."

All the issues surrounding the instructors, their pay or lack of, and the CAAs unwillingness to help more experienced pilots who want to give something back are all very valid points, and ones I agree with. Dont forget though why we all, mostly, got into this game....to fly a jet for an airline. Ask yourself, if you were offered the same money to instruct in C152s or fly a jet....what would you take? We are all ambitious, thats why we are where we are, and we all want to continually challenge ourselves and to expand and learn, thats how we get that experience. Its not a bad thing, its to be encouraged, its a great job afterall. However, when its time to give back, it should be an easy process. remoak can probably give a good account of the lack of help from C*#nts Against Aviation unlimited, and Id be interested to know in fact. Afterall, they are charging Pax more tax on their tickets so they can move to a flash new office next to the beehive, obviously THATs more important than say, the airport?!:ugh::rolleyes:

Although, I cant imagine any LACK of training put that pilot where he ended up that night...it is pure bad decision making. He must have known the wx that night. And who in their right mind would depart to fly over that terrain, at night, in a lighty without knowing the enroute and destination wx? And knowing the wx, who then would take off? It is a truly staggering lack of judgement, and in this case, I dont think the experience level of his instructors, his training or wise words would have made a difference. Ask yourself, would you have done this flight?

[minimum_wage]

As this was an unauthorised flight, perhaps the pilot thought the risk of getting back through the bad wx to save getting a bollocking and potential instructing job, outweighed the risk of the conditions. If so then he cleary paid the ultimate price. Why would you not climb above MSA, get onto control and get help if you were instrument rated. I would suggest if you didn't want anyone finding out.
Maybe the good old human factors decision making model is at work here. The get-home-itis effect. Always take some over night gear with you on a x-country cos you never know what might happen. I know a few guys that have been stuck in the middle of nowhere and decided to stay due wx. Might have got some grief but lived to move on to bigger and better things.

And I'll thrown in my agreement with remoak too. There is no experience in aeroclubs (on the day to day flying level generally). Fresh outta school instructors with no experience themselves can't teach what they don't know.

[27/09]

To add to what I wrote before. I understand that the said person was a graduate of one of them there Part 141 flight schools with all the smart manuals on how to train pilots. Kinda helps prove my point about the value of Part 141.

[nike]

Is it that bad out there now?

I'm not in the know, I don't know, I'm asking.
You guys seem to paint a sad picture.
I ask because these seem to be the same comments that have been floating around for a long time. The only difference is that it's the next generation now saying them.

Some pretty big brushes being used on these pages.
Are those holding the brush in the know? I'm not.

I like Nosey's thinking, airmanship can be tough to teach.
I don't get what Conflict is going on about with the cut and paste of a headliner referring to the costs of staying in Sweden to get a JAA licence. Bizarre.
27/09 - that doesn't wash either, the bell curve is always in effect.

I feel for the guy that trained him. The way this thread reads, you guys are ready to string 'em up. What's being said here is that a poor job was done. Based on what is beyond me, but I guess that's a result of keeping that big brush moving.

[27/09]

nike,

As you have probably guessed I think Part 141 is an unnecessary encumberance of paper work and bureaucracy.

My last comment was tongue in cheek. CAA have used similar events in the past to justify their actions. If this sad accident had involved a trainee from a non Part 141 organisation it would not surprise me if CAA used it to promote the introduction of Part 141.

I think most training organisations, whether or not they are part 141, try to do their best by their students with the resources (including instructors) available to to them. There has been a lack of experience in instructing ranks due to the high turnover of recent times. With this accident I don't think the quality of training is the issue.

There has been much discussion on how to solve this problem. It's dog eat dog. Some places pay their instructors a fair wage, others...... well who knows. Then we have the age old problem of new instructors/pilots being willing to work for free to get that first job. How do the places that pay well compete with places that don't pay and pilots that are willing to work for free?

As much as I don't think regulation is the way to fix a problem sometimes it seems it is the only way. The suggestion that organisations need to be capable of paying their staff properly and this is monitored might be one way.

[M14_P]

Night Xcountry VFR over terrain around the King Country etc has got to be the craziest thing to attempt....look at the crash site, there is no hope if you need to get down quickly...

To an extent it is possible to see what it is like to fly in adverse weather with instructors both experienced enough and familiar enough with the area, certainly has advantages over doing all one's training in purely ideal conditions.

[M14_P]

27/09, very interesting. i heard from someone at the Flying NZ conference recently that they are doing away with the 141 requirement. Ironically, it is the individual instructors providing quality and experience to their flight training that would lose out and have to try and find a 141 organisation to operate under - imagine that, a 10,000 hr ex military/airline pilot being supervised by a 1000hr B Cat with 950 of those hours in a cherokee, oh crikey don't forget the 25 hrs on twins, it is just ridiculous.

I have received the best instruction from guys not connected to 141, D cats etc. Brilliant brilliant teachers (one was ex US Navy and another ex US Marine) and an experienced GA instructor with 3000+ including 1000hr on De Haviland types. Great learning experiences.

[conflict alert]

I don't get what Conflict is going on about with the cut and paste of a headliner referring to the costs of staying in Sweden to get a JAA licence. Bizarre.


just reafirming my case...used as an example...pay lots, get licence, sorry if it annoyed you.

[AutopilotEngage]

Ok can we not blow it out of proportion here. Yes, I do agree it was a bad decision to go that night but if we look at what we've been told so far.

He reported over Raglan at 6.50 pm, therefore I don't think he was planning on going over rough terrain, seems as though he was going to track via the coast to NP. Also to be over Raglan at 6.50 he must have left NE around 5.30 pm plus or minus, That's still light, albeit, just. We don't know whether he planned to leave at that time or if he was delayed at any stage. Also the weather was not as bad as everyone's making out, yes there was a ****eload of wind out, I had the cloud base around 2500', visibility was average. The weather for NP was forecast to get worse though.

I'm not the biggest fan of night nav's even in the best weather but I think there are confounding and extraneous variables here that we could be overlooking.

People are all too eager to blame pilots from the start and I think it's our duty as fellow pilots to just as quickly jump to their defence, at least 'til all the facts are known.


And just as a post script I've found some of the best instructors I've had have been hour-builders and the career instructors I've dealt with had lost touch with what its like to be a student. Not saying this applies overall, just my experience.

[Three Blader]

m14lp
you wont believe this one

a Dcat with 13000 hr wants to get a C cat
The Caa dosent want to help him probably because he has more experence than they have
he has completed both the 2 day /4 day ITC courswe
The 4 day one is just out of date he applied for a 3 month extension declined by the Mountain FLYING GORU cARLTON CAMPBELL BECAUSE HE HADNT ORGANISED HIS TIME PROPLEY AMAZING This is defintiately Comissioon Against Avation
C A A

[Luke SkyToddler]

Some tough calls being made here, especially by all of you old timers getting misty eyed about how better the training was in the good old days.

Can all of you please stand up who NEVER made an iffy decision to get airborne when you were a young fella with low hours, and subsequently found themselves in a scary situation wishing they were somewhere else.

This thread is going down the normal road of bagging NZ instructor standards and experience levels and that's just not right here. In fact if the flight was unauthorized as some of you are reporting, then it's got absolutely zero to do with it.

I feel for the guy's instructor as well, he must be absolutely gutted and wondering what he did wrong to have this guy go and ignore his training and get airborne and do what he did.

NZ has a bloody tricky environment of weather and terrain at the best of times, regardless of experience levels it's so so hard sometimes when you're the B cat sitting in the briefing room signing the guy out and trying to mentally determine from a few bits of paper if what this guy is presenting you with is a normal day with potential to be challenging, or whether it's a killer.

[NoseGear]

AutopilotEngage.....confounding and extaneous variables? Maybe so, but I cant imagine what they might be, after all, would you turn INTO the high terrain at night in bad wx? If he was over Raglan at 1850, then he didnt leave till probably 1800, its not that far from NE. And if his departure was delayed, thats another point he could have broken the accident chain. He had at least an hour to go, in darkness and into deteriorating wx, and it was very windy (in fact, there was a Tornado just south of NP that night) so along with poor wx, it was probably pretty lumpy too. Add all that up, poor viz, lowering cloud base, rain and turb, at night in a C152....he would have had his hands full. And of course, he had to navigate....Im not privy as to whether he had a GPS or VOR onboard, anybody? Why not just track the coast back to Auckland? Can you tell me where you got your wx info? 2500' and average viz? Going thru an unseen rainshower would drop that markedly, lighty windscreens arent very good with rain on them. Im not trying to bag him personally, but highlight the decisions he made, perhaps offer alternates so that young pilots may learn from this accident, and hopefully not repeat it.

I also agree with Luke on the bagging instructors, it wasnt the intructors who put this guy where he was, his own decision making process did that. Im absolutely certain no instructor would have authorised a flight such as this, regardless of experience, wages or anything else.

[haughtney1]

Nosegear,

I also agree with Luke on the bagging instructors, it wasnt the intructors who put this guy where he was, his own decision making process did that

I think instructors are fair game in respect of being bought to task with the standard of pilot they produce, I also am firmly of the opinion that decision making taught during the very early stages of instruction is vital to that students survival!
If the experience base isn't there...the decision making skills are also lacking...so then how can you teach it if you haven't learn't it yourself?
Its not about bagging instructors, its about bagging the system that at times has the blind teaching the ignorant.

The investigation into this incident will focus on this chaps training history, with particular emphasis on his decision making skills, in that regard, I am confident the instructor(s) who taught this fellow will be taking a cold hard look at themselves and asking the question "did I do all I could to prevent this from happening?"
My opinion is that they will have taught this fellow to the best of their ability, I just have a nagging doubt based on past experience, that something might have been missed in this fellows character.
I was fortunate, my nagging doubt I speak about was very nearly beaten out of me by a well respected B cat who at the time grounded me for 2 months..which taught me a lesson that saved my Bacon 10 years later.

We all go through our lives making decisions, some more benign than others, regretably flying at night in a light, under powered training aircraft, in less than ideal weather has proved to be fatal for this poor guy.

[riseagainst]

From memory the aircraft was not fitted with a Vor.
Flew over the crash site other day, from what we saw looks like the planes clipped the top of a ridge with a wing, rolled over and landed on the other side.

[remoak]

NoseGear

remoak can probably give a good account of the lack of help from C*#nts Against Aviation unlimited, and Id be interested to know in fact.When I asked them, I was a current check and training captain on the 146 with over 10,000 logged and over 5000 of those jet command, about 2000 hours of airline training. They said I would need to do the following:
-ATPL law exam
-BFR
-Renew C cat
-Renew Multi, multi I/R and multi instructors ratings

To do that, bearing in mind that any aero club or flight school is going to want to milk you for as many hours as they can get, was going to take at least ten hours in a single and another ten hours in a multi. Add all that up, and you end up spending well over five grand as an absolute minimum, probably a lot more, and that is a sum it would probably take 6-12 months to get back from whatever money you could get from instructing.

I pointed out that my JAA arline check and training experience must count for something, but the CAA doesn't agree and will not recognise that experience in mitigation of NZ requirements. So, although on the one hand they bleat on about the lack of experience in the instructor pool, they will do nothing to help alleviate it.

The second obstacle is the aero clubs and flight schools. The young instructors, all of whom are hours-building, tend to get pretty uppity at the idea of some old guy coming in and stealing "their" hours. The clubs and schools, not being keen to piss off their cheap labour force, are reluctant to give the old hands any flying. There are exceptions to that in Auckland, but not down my end of the island.

So basically, the whole culture needs to change if the overall experience level in the instructor pool is ever going to increase.

The stupid thing is that the young instructors who object to the older guys coming in, are turning down a golden opportunity to learn about how the airline world really works, from those who have been there and done that.

Anyway, I'm not holding my breath for any change to either the attitude of the flight schools, or the CAA's "more than my job's worth, Guvnor" way of thinking.

nike

airmanship can be tough to teach.It is impossible to teach if you have no experience to draw from. At least if you have been there, done that, and scared yourself ****less, you can pass advice with some actual conviction, rather than passing on vague concepts.

AutopilotEngage

Also the weather was not as bad as everyone's making out, yes there was a ****eload of wind out, I had the cloud base around 2500', visibility was average.Night time and under a cloud deck, even a broken one, is basically IMC. This is particularly true if you are low level and over rough country, where you are unlikely to have a decent horizon or any sensible ground references. If you aren't instrument-rated, you are just asking for it trying that sort of thing.

Also, the second that you become unsure of your position, the automatic reaction should be to climb above MSA and shout for help. Embarrassing (if you have a big ego), but nobody dies.

I think it's our duty as fellow pilots to just as quickly jump to their defence, at least 'til all the facts are known.Actually it isn't, apart maybe from in GA. In the airline world, the safety culture is built around admitting mistakes and learning from them. The assumption is that the pilot screwed up, unless there was an obvious structural or mechanical failure, and even then the actions of the pilot will be carefully scrutinised to make sure that he or she didn't exacerbate the problem. That is why airline pilots are virtually always suspended from duty following a serious incident or accident, pending an investigation. This approach may seem harsh, but it is one reason why the airline safety culture will always be superior to that found in GA.

Luke SkyToddler

Can all of you please stand up who NEVER made an iffy decision to get airborne when you were a young fella with low hours, and subsequently found themselves in a scary situation wishing they were somewhere else.
Pretty much all of us have done that, it is how you learn. However, the difference between the "good old days" and now, is that then the instructors passed on that experience to their students, or took their students out in bad but manageable weather to show them what it looks like. As others have pointed out, that doesn't happen any more in the "sausage factories", in fact the instructors there have probably never seen any bad weather and are therefore unlikely to appreciate the dangers as much as their older brethren.

This thread is going down the normal road of bagging NZ instructor standards and experience levels and that's just not right here. In fact if the flight was unauthorized as some of you are reporting, then it's got absolutely zero to do with it.It's got EVERYTHING to do with it. If the guy had a proper appreciation of the risks, he wouldn't be dead. That appreciation, at his experience level, should have come from his instructors. He obviously made bad decisions that he alone is responsible for, but there is the "swiss cheese" effect in play here, and some of those holes are at the instructor level. I agree that no competent instructor would have authorised the trip, but good instructors should inculcate a culture of caution in their students. If this guy had successfully completed his Instructor Rating, I would be concerned about what he would have advised his students with regard to night VFR, weather etc.

NZ has a bloody tricky environment of weather and terrain at the best of timesI'm rather surprised to hear you say that. NZ weather is relatively benign compared to some parts of the world. Forgotten your days in Dundee?

regardless of experience levels it's so so hard sometimes when you're the B cat sitting in the briefing room signing the guy out and trying to mentally determine from a few bits of paper if what this guy is presenting you with is a normal day with potential to be challenging, or whether it's a killer.Pretty surprised to hear you say that, too. It is the B Cat's JOB to ensure that the trainee doesn't depart if there is any significant weather risk. If he or she can't do that, he or she shouldn't be a B cat in the first place. You always err on the side of caution. You always apply safety tolerances. At the end of the day, if you launch a student and they run into anything that kills them, and that thing was either evident or could be inferred from the "bits of paper", you are at least partly responsible.

[glekichi]

There is a lot of stuff that needs some thought (by the regulators in particular) posted here, but very little has been mentioned regarding night VFR and the way it is taught and regulated.

Whilst I cringe at the thought of it being handled (read: over regulated) the way it is in OZ, the techniques taught in NZ do NOT apply to x-country night VFR.

What is taught in NZ is extremely valuable, but strictly for use in KNOWN AREAS; not blasting off from A to B in the middle of the night, regardless of the weather.

Regulation in OZ is very appropriate when CRUISING IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE and approaching an UNKNOWN AIRFIELD, whilst NZ teaches very well how to fly REAL NIGHT VFR, BY LOOKING OUT THE FECKING WINDOW.

Why the hell you would want to fly from A to B VFR in the middle of the night still boggles me...............

[M14_P]

Three Blader, doesn't it make you weep? Pathetic, what else can one say....:ugh:

[M14_P]

Talking about airmanship anyone ever heard the following;

"With repetition comes good habits, with good habits comes good airmanship, with good airmanship comes security, and with security comes enjoyment. Then joyful repetition starts mastery."

As a (very) new instructor, coming from a mere 18 months already in the industry, I'd like to think I'd be able to over time become a career instructor (not hour building), as I intend to get another aircraft for personal use, something else aerobatic, with 2 seats to continue teaching in, basic and advanced aerobatics as that has always been my total passion in this game, nothing else even remotely interests me.

With so many negative references to 'hour building' instructors I definately hope to not end up one of those in some kind of lightning hurry to move up in the monkey race.....

[Water Wings]

I was by no means a high time pilot but had built up a bit more experience than your average instructor at the local aero club.

On being keen to return to instructing, most places ignored me while others offered me the same money as a brand new 300 hour 'C' Cat...Hmm......

[Luke SkyToddler]

Points all taken remoak. You're right of course in that we should always err on the side of caution, and I can't think of any scenario in a million years where any instructor with a brain would authorize a night VFR XC over the King Country.

And yet completely avoidable accidents keep on happening, even when a good conscientious instructor has applied the nth degree of safety precaution. So what goes wrong?

I know there's three or four of us on the thread who were lucky enough to train under Gordon Vette in the early '90s, and remember what a tight ship he ran, his whole being was devoted to passing on his immense airmanship to his instructors and students ... and yet on his watch, a CPL student killed himself and an innocent passenger in beautiful weather in one of the most immensely stupid acts in the history of kiwi GA. Bad things can happen even to good instructors.

What I should have maybe said was, that the instructor uses his own airmanship to assess the student's solo ability and signs them out on an exercise suitable for their level of ability. The student places their trust in the instructor not to send them into anything dangerous, but it's a two way street, we also place our trust in the student to use what skill and judgment they have when they're out there and not do anything they're not authorized or trained for or that they know might lead them into trouble.

Every single flight has the potential for tragedy if that trust isn't taken seriously by both parties. I would suggest unless facts prove otherwise, that the breach of trust in this case occurred at the student rather than the instructor end of the bargain.

[slackie]

Aviation is cruel and unforgiving.

I believe there are 4 types of pilots...
1. those that won't scare themselves sh!tless because they have learned from someone else's mistakes/experience (unfortunately this group is probably relatively small),
2. those that have scared themselves sh!tless and learn from the experience,
3. those that have yet to scare themelves sh!tless and will learn from the experience,
4. lastly those that have yet to scare themselves sh!tless and won't survive to learn from the experience.

I fall into the second category.

There but for the grace of God.....(and I'm not at all religious!)

RIP

PS...I guess unfortunately there's another group...those that are just idiots and won't learn no matter what happens!!
PPS...I am in no way suggesting that the pilot in this case fell into any particular category...that is up to the investigator to determine.

[Massey058]

PPRuNe can be quite depressing at times and I'm not suggesting that this is an uplifting topic by a long shot but here we actually have a decent discussion with all sorts of experience levels chipping in.

As I said earlier in the peace I knew the pilot, I also know his instructors from his ab-initio training (some of whom I have flown with). Some of the comments made on here are certainly a bit rough but I understand where people are coming from.

Like all accidents there will no doubt be a number of factors at play in this one but it does seem like it all comes down to the go/no-go decision process.

On instructors and not just at the school we both trained at, there will always be 'lifers' (that seems like a derogatory term but most certainly is not) and 'hour-builders'. These two tags are largely un-important as it comes down to the individual and their own merits. The pilot concerned flew with both types of instructors from 'green' c-cat to experienced a-cat with outside experience. All of which I would describe as consciencious operators at a minimum.

I don't think the 'sausage factory' lack of experience in right of operating conditions holds water either. I can't speak to his particular training in every aspect but as a general rule you get to experience varying conditions, sometimes you even have to turn-around when it all turns to custard (dual and/or solo).

This brings me to get-there-itis, I think one of the most dangerous thought processes that can run through a pilots mind. I don't believe its something that gets neglected in training (as above) and I certainly remember being lectured about this subject a lot. Its even a flight test item.

Pilots are generally mission-based, we fly from here to there, simple. But this creates problems because when you add in grey-areas (black and white to some, but not others at times) there can be a pull to push on through. Despite all the airmanship/professionalism briefings and AvKiwi seminars people still die. I don't think it means these are pointless exercises, quite the reverse but keep trying we must.

Night VFR, CAA and oversight and GA awards etc. are all side issues in this case I think, but very worthy of discussion.

[Staticport]

Aviation is cruel and unforgiving.

I believe there are 4 types of pilots...
1. those that won't scare themselves sh!tless because they have learned from someone else's mistakes/experience (unfortunately this group is probably relatively small),
2. those that have scared themselves sh!tless and learn from the experience,
3. those that have yet to scare themelves sh!tless and will learn from the experience,
4. lastly those that have yet to scare themselves sh!tless and won't survive to learn from the experience.



I would say most fall under category 2

[nike]

However, the difference between the "good old days" and now, is that then the instructors passed on that experience to their students, or took their students out in bad but manageable weather to show them what it looks like. As others have pointed out, that doesn't happen any more in the "sausage factories", in fact the instructors there have probably never seen any bad weather and are therefore unlikely to appreciate the dangers as much as their older brethren.

Is this statement an accurate representation of the NZ training scene in 2009?

[kiwi chick]

Remoak, you speak some very wise words, I'll be sure to always read your posts in the future. :)

Threeblader - I apologise, that probably didn't sound as I intended it to. I wondered if you were a "new pilot" and had been taught something about the 406 beacon that I didn't know. In the military we're taught about the beacons with the GPS high-accuracy and I didn't realise there were other that weren't so accurate.

I totally concur with Hughesy (and a couple of others) who recommend reading the accident reports. I read every single one of them and I'm sure as ****e it's saved my bacon on more than one occassion.

[AutopilotEngage]

Night time and under a cloud deck, even a broken one, is basically IMC. This is particularly true if you are low level and over rough country, where you are unlikely to have a decent horizon or any sensible ground references. If you aren't instrument-rated, you are just asking for it trying that sort of thing.

Also, the second that you become unsure of your position, the automatic reaction should be to climb above MSA and shout for help. Embarrassing (if you have a big ego), but nobody dies.


I'm 100% with you.


Nosegear,

If he was over Raglan at 1850, then he didnt leave till probably 1800, its not that far from NE

Given.

Can you tell me where you got your wx info? 2500' and average viz?

Left Raglan around 5.30pm driving to Hamilton that night,


It was a stupid decision to leave I just want there to be other reasons and factors involved as I knew him and was present when he made some pretty smart decisions regarding wx and flying. Don't know what he was thinking that night. Too sad really :(.

[remoak]

Luke S-T

So what goes wrong?It's basically an age-old story of overconfidence and perceived invulnerability.

Any newly minted CPL, despite probably having been told many times that it is simply a licence to learn, will feel pretty good about themselves and will often think they are fully equipped to get away with pretty much anything. In this case, I'm sure the guy was probably thinking that he could get out of his difficulties right up until he hit the ridge. The problem is, that without a decent level of experience, he probably both over-estimated his ability to escape the situation, and under-estimated just how serious his situation was.

Speaking from my own experience (both GA and airline), there often comes a point where you have been working increasingly hard to resolve a problem, and you suddenly realise that, oh ****, I'm in trouble here! At that point, the brain either stops working, your grip on the controls increases, and you essentially freeze up, or your brain yells "DO SOMETHING!!!' and you execute an escape manoeuver (ie a climb to MSA, turn towards the sea, etc). The second option only works if you have thought it through beforehand and made a plan, of course.

So back to your question. It happens because pilots get over-confident and get into trouble too quickly to get out of it again, or because the don't recognise their situation as being dangerous in the first place, or because they suddenly realise that they are in trouble and they panic.

It also happens if their instructors have not prepared/warned/monitored them properly to ensure that they will recognise trouble when they see it. However, that is only ever a secondary reason, the pilot is always in charge of his or her own destiny and has to live or die with his or her decisions.

I taught a lot of students, back when the CAA would let me, and some of them were just accidents waiting to happen. Way over-confident, typical extreme-sports types who thought that risk taking was a fun thing to do, and who never really considered the consequences of anything they did. Getting them to interpret weather or NOTAMs was always a major chore, and they had little appreciation of what weather was really like... but they passed their exams, the ASL FTO passed them, so they ended up as C cats. I pitied their students and tried to "help", but most students liked the idea of a gung-ho instructor, so it was a waste of time.

During my period instructing, I had fellow instructors who:

- thought it was OK to land on a country road and fill up with pump gas when they mis-managed their fuel plan;
- decided to formate on me without bothering to tell me first;
-cut in front of me when I was on short finals, while laughing about it over the radio;
- tried to impress female students by doing chandelles in the training area, lost it, ended up in a spin and barely recovered;
-came back from Omaka one crappy day at 200';
-intentionally entered cloud, iced up, lost all forward vis and very nearly crashed into a ridge;
- and a CFI who got a job flying in PNG anf flew into a cliff while in cloud a few months later.

I doubt that much has changed in the intervening years, particularly as the CAA have little interest in actual regulation.

There are some pretty damning YouTube videos featuring NZ instructors if you look around.

Compare that to the airline world... when I check out a pilot, either on a line check or in the sim, he or she is required to operate to SOPs. If they deviate for any reason, they have to explain why. Unless the explanation is very good, they fail. If they do not fly the correct speeds, they generally fail. If they at any time demonstrate a "cowboy" attitude, they fail. You see the difference? We simply do not allow the attitudes that you find in GA. That is why the airlines (and the military) will always be safer than GA. The CAA don't help, as they take an essentially "hands off" attitude to regulation (whilst wringing their hands over the experience levels amongst instructors).

It's all about attitude, you either have a professional one or you don't. That includes the CAA, who don't understand the word "professional".

Oh, andf Night VFR is the stupidist thing I have ever heard of. If you want to fly at night, go get an instrument rating. Anything else is dicing with death.

I agree with the rest of your post, BTW.

"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous, but to a degree even greater than the sea is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or neglect." -Cap. A.G. Lamplaugh, British Aviation Insurance Corp., ~1930

[bestpilotindaworld]

There are two types of instructors;

1) The ones that have had a job FLYING the plane themselfs and have quite a threw hours and have learned what the aeroplane can do and what bad wx is. And normally leaving it upto the student until they really F&%K UP they take over and still talk you threw it.

2) The newbe C-Cat straight out of there course with 300 hours that think they are going to be airline pilots tomorrow. Trying to teach poor students how to do things but they havent put it into practice themselfs and always having there hands under the controls or there F&%Kin feet on the pedals. Always playing with things and saying "I've got control" and doing a couple of medium turns and then saying "You have control" or its a bit windy and the last time they did a x-wind landing was when they watch there instructor do it for them or talking on the the F&%kin radio

Having had myself nearly 30 instructors in 12 years I have seen them all. I was lucky when I did my PPL that most of the instructors were type 1's.

I have seen quite a few people go flew the local aero club in my time and the ones that are trained by type 1 turn out great pilots, the ones that get a bit of both normally turn out alright but the ones that are trained just type 2 are F&%ked and are just waiting to be in Vector!

[AutopilotEngage]

- thought it was OK to land on a country road and fill up with pump gas when they mis-managed their fuel plan;


I'm in shock, that's absolutely insane.

[remoak]

I'm in shock, that's absolutely insane.

Yep, and that guy was the CFI of a Wellington region flight school for a year or three.

I had an instructor at a certain establishment in the Capital, who thought it was fine to go off on a club trip, get utterly bent at a pub in Queenstown until 3am, and then get airborne at 7am and head off to Alexandria via the valleys (as the tops were in cloud).

I also had an instructor in Wellington who took a substantial amount of money off me to do my multi instrument. We went up to RO to pick up the Seneca we were going to use... turned out he had never flown one, so the club up there gave him a quick "rating" with me in the back. The guy consistently over-boosted the engines (he had never flown turbocharged pistons before), but the club let him take the aircraft anyway. Got halfway through the rating, when the place he was doing my rating at enquired as to whose AOC he was using (as theirs didn't cover multi training). He told them he was using his employer's AOC (a well-known Wellington charter operator). He told his employer that he was using the flight school's AOC. Eventually the flight school asked the Charter company... and that was the end of my multi instrument...

[kiwi chick]

Bestpilotindaworld:

I have to disagree just a little here:

There are two types of instructors;

I was a newbie C-Cat straight off course but I had absolutely no doubt whatsoever that I knew squat. I was never destined for airlines - it didn't interest me - so hours were totally irrelevant to me.

On ****ty days, I would be the one ringing the customer to explain that conditions weren't the greatest, and for best "hands-on" value for money, it would be prudent to reschedule for a better day. There's not point in them paying for me to fly. :hmm:

I was always faced with shocked looks from the "Type 2" instructors who didn't give a toss that their student was not going to touch the controls - it was another 0.6 in their logbook, after all ... :ugh:

So, whilst my experience of 600 hours is a mere drop in the hat compared to many others, there are some of us that still have the right attitude.

The old "if you can't beat 'em, join e'm" doesn't wash with me, so I got out. I gave up a good job (as a photography pilot) because I just was not comfortable - or happy - sharing the same airspace with the above-mentioned pilots.

:)

[AutopilotEngage]

I had an instructor at a certain establishment in the Capital, who thought it was fine to go off on a club trip, get utterly bent at a pub in Queenstown until 3am, and then get airborne at 7am and head off to Alexandria via the valleys (as the tops were in cloud).

:eek:

I also had an instructor in Wellington who took a substantial amount of money off me to do my multi instrument. We went up to RO to pick up the Seneca we were going to use... turned out he had never flown one, so the club up there gave him a quick "rating" with me in the back. The guy consistently over-boosted the engines (he had never flown turbocharged pistons before), but the club let him take the aircraft anyway. Got halfway through the rating, when the place he was doing my rating at enquired as to whose AOC he was using (as theirs didn't cover multi training). He told them he was using his employer's AOC (a well-known Wellington charter operator). He told his employer that he was using the flight school's AOC. Eventually the flight school asked the Charter company... and that was the end of my multi instrument...

That's horrible. I'm sitting here in utter disbelief. I guess I had good training then, can't really complain compared to this.

So you trained in WN? Must have got those orbits down to a fine art?:ok: I'm guessing/hoping this was a while ago?

[kiwi chick]

Who me?!

Trained at an establishment just north of Wellington which was a good place to learn, in 2004. Unfortunately I then moved to a different establishment, also north of Wellington, to do my instructor rating whilst doing Heli training.

Had I just waited a year, my original training establishment would have been able to help as they now have Heli as well.

Yep, all those stories sound very familiar too. Sadly. :rolleyes:

[Three Blader]

Kiwi Chick
Aviation Is All About Learing
I Lve Talking About To All Interested Aviators

[kiwi chick]

And I, ThreeBlader, love listening to guys like you who have the stories to tell. :ok:

[remoak]

AutopilotEngage

So you trained in WN? Must have got those orbits down to a fine art?:ok: I'm guessing/hoping this was a while ago?Yes, WN and PP. Many, many orbits... and yes, this was back in the mid 80's. When there were still training areas and CASOs, instead of the bastardised American system we have now... no landing fees... no ASL... Flight Service in the tower at PP... yep, them was the days... :ok:

The thing that makes me laugh though, is that pretty much all the aircraft that were on the line then, 25 years ago, are still on the line today (especially at PP).

[kiwi chick]

Remoak we have probably therefore flown the same aircraft :ok:

(well, you would have flown... I "lessened the life of"...)

[conflict alert]

When there were still training areas and CASOs

Jeesh, now we are going back a bit...I remember asking my instuctor for $20 bucks worth of flying please, each weekend..that was at PP, when WNDAC was also at PP and he would give me 30mins of flying in the Grumman Tiger. My god..a 4 seater for 30mins for 20 bucks..probably crossed swords with you at some point remoak??

[conflict alert]

probably crossed swords with you at some point remoak??

disregard...I have re read your posts and you say mid 80's..I was there late 70's early 80's

[remoak]

kiwi chick

Remoak we have probably therefore flown the same aircraft

I would say certainly!

conflict alert

I have re read your posts and you say mid 80's..I was there late 70's early 80's

I started learning to fly at the PP Gliding Club around 1977, soloed in powered aircraft at WDAC (PP) in 1979...

[conflict alert]

Good God...hope my spelling is okay but Elywn Bachop, Tony Harcourt, Kevin Laplanche (RIP) Kevin sent me solo Jan 1980, sadly and not to his knowledge 2 months before my 16th birthday and sadly he passed on the day of my 16th birthday in the LFA crash.

[remoak]

That's pretty sad...

Tony Harcourt sent me solo in ZK-DLI, a Grumman... pretty sure it is still around PP. Probably had about a dozen new nose legs since then. I seem to remember a guy named Rod Hand who did my first powered trial flight (in ZK-ELS - still there I think). And Ben Stafford... then I defected to Wellington and flew with Mike Dorrian and Alan Wilson. Mike went on to Air NZ and Alan Wilson got into Cathay I think... fun times.

I seem to remember some pretty good airshows at PP back in the day... Skyhawks and everything.

[kiwi chick]

Ha!! I know ZK-ELS intimately... but not quite as well as ZK-EOM... :ok:

[Fark'n'ell]

bestpilotindaworld

For an 18 year old you seem to have a lot of knowledge on things "aviation"
Pity your command of the English language and it's grammar did not reflect this.
Grow up sonny,you are only a boy wearing mans trousers.

[CaptainInsaneO]

What Fark'n'ell said...
If these legendary instructors had some extra time, maybe you could pay them to teach you English properly.

Hopefully you have a lot of money...

[PlankBlender]

Fark'n'ell , if you correct other people's English you might want to double check your own posts :rolleyes:

For an 18 year old you seem to have a lot of knowledge on things "aviation".
Pity your command of the English language and it's [make that: 'its'] grammar did not reflect this.
Grow up sonny,you are only a boy wearing mans [make that: 'man's'] trousers.

[remoak]

Fark'n'ell , if you correct other people's English you might want to double check your own postsYou may also want to correct " knowledge on things "aviation" ", which should be "knowledge of things..."

Also, correct usage would usually render "18 year old" as "18-year-old", and "Pity your command..." should be "It is a pity that your command..."; and "grammar did not reflect this" should really be "grammar does not reflect this", but maybe that is splitting hairs.

If you like, I could lend you the two commas, one apostrophe and space that you need to complete your post... :}

[bestpilotindaworld]

Sorry guys the New Zealand school system failed me! :ugh:

And it's 19 "Fark'n'ell" :ouch:

For an 18 year old you seem to have a lot of knowledge on things "aviation"

I can't have as much knowledge as you now, can I? - I'm not 570 years old. :rolleyes:

[kiwi chick]

Yeah, Farken'n'ell... that one year makes all the difference you know!! ;)

[Fark'n'ell]

"And it's 19 "Fark'n'ell"


My apologies Kiwi Chick
After having been on this planet for 570 years, perhaps one could be forgiven for losing one year.
Tucking fosser :ok:

[remoak]

So what did you do for the 464 years before aviation was invented...? ;)

[Fark'n'ell]

remoak
Sorry old chap, but I am not at liberty to reveal the answer to your question.
Litigation and all that sort of thing.I do hope you understand.

Regarding your correction of my grammar and punctuation you must remember it is a long time since I attended school and at my advanced age Alzheimers does seem to be a bit of a problem,so I do hope you can forgive me for my indiscretions :ok:

[remoak]

Indeed I do. Us old people need to stick together.

Although... "grammer" should be "grammar" and "indescretion" should be "indiscretion"... so I am wondering how you got "alzheimers" right...!

Seriously though, being the spelling and grammar police is always done with tongue firmly in cheek. Let he who is without sin... etc.

Having said that, it is alarming how many young fellas are entering aviation with what appears to be a totally inadequate education...

[mattyj]

..yeah and becoming a pilot won't teach you anything useful either outside the cockpit, once you've flown for a living youre useless for a real job too...I could never go back to working for a living..I'm too lazy now!

[remoak]

Well if you think banging around the Third World in a Caravan is easy, wait until you hit the airlines... hot and cold running wimmin on tap... as much coffee as you can drink, brought you by a luscious CSD... an F/O to carry your bag for you... lots of food... and that nice CSD there to tuck you into your seat. Not to mention luxurious crew buses and five star hotels... and rampies calling you "sir" all the time... no man should have to put up with all that.:}:ok:

[LocoDriver]

MattyJ, you say go back to working for a living??

Didnt know you had done that before............. ooo that'l get him goin'

:E:E:E:E

Remoak,
you are SAD! but I guess someones gotta put up with all those conditions!

:{:{



Totally Loco..............

[remoak]

Yeah it's a tough job, but someone has to do it... :ok:

The thing I am still trying to work out, is how the airlines make you endure all that stuff, and then want to pay you for it each month. It's tough, trying to work out what to do with all the money. I mean, there are only so many fast cars you can buy... :}