C310 Down in the TIWI's

[The Mentalist]

A C310 is down on Bathurst Is after dropping off the Tiwi Bombers Last night. Anyone know more? Which Charter company in Darwin? Poor Guy, probably had an EFATO.:uhoh: Apprently happend about 10pm.
Another reason I got out of Aviation. Dead at 22 on maybe $40K a year, with no other benefits except to fly a twin. Sour Grapes maybe, but there is more to life than an early death from old and/or poorly maintained aircraft.:ok:

[tmpffisch]

The Northern Territory Police say a Darwin pilot has been killed on Bathurst Island after his plane crashed just north of Nguiu airport last night.
Territory Police say the Chart Air service crashed shortly after the pilot took off from Nguiu airport on his return trip to Darwin.
Police Watch Commander David Wilson says the Air Transport Safety Bureau has been informed of the accident and will investigate further.
"The circumstances are that at approximately 9.50pm last night a Cesna 310 crashed shortly after take-off from Nguiu Airport on Bathurst Island," he said.
"At this stage the cause of the accident is unknown, police have secured the scene and located a male pilot deceased."
From the ABC website. Very sad indeed.

[baron_beeza]

Pilot killed after NT football charter (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8207038/pilot-killed-after-nt-football-charter)


Only a newspaper report...

but does not sound good, I am sure of the locals here will know more.

Sorry to hear....

[Howard Hughes]

probably had an EFATO.
Or maybe just moonless night and a departure to the North, most accidents do not involve a catastrophic failure...

[tinpis]

Awful.
We shall see. Bit of weather up that way last night.

[The Green Goblin]

Just terrible!

It was in a convoy of 5 aeroplanes, imagine being one of the other aircraft seeing the smoking wreckage, it would have been pretty hard to keep composed on the way back to Darwin.

Which company was it? I am very worried for the welfare of the many good guys I know up there.

EDIT: If at all possible, can someone please PM me the name of the Pilot - thankyou!

GG

[baron_beeza]

.
his plane crashed just north of Nguiu airport last night.
Territory Police say the Chart Air service crashed
..............

[The Green Goblin]

It's Chartair for a start.

I was not sure if the media got 'Chartair' from 'Charter'. There are quite a few C310 operators in the NT.

GG

[rover5520]

Does Chartair run C310 to/from Nguiu-or was it an aircraft chartered by Chartair?

[The Green Goblin]

Thanks guys for the PMs

Poor bugger....:{

[baron_beeza]

GG

I would know most, if not all the 310 operators up that way, I took it as Chartair... and I am the one with little faith in the media.

Was it a Chartair pilot involved ?

[The Green Goblin]

It was a Chartair crosshire, it was not a Chartair aeroplane.

[cone zone]

Mentalist

its too early to jump to conclusions on the quality of maintenance of the aircraft.

[piston broke again]

Very sad news. Knew the guy from Perth. My heart goes out to his family and close friends. Top bloke.

[lurker999]

listening on the radio here.

supposedly people saw a bit of an explosion just after it took off around one of the wings. make of this what you will, but that's from an eye witness

some of the Tiwi players went out to look for him, found the poor guy and stayed with him all night.

the players are very freaked out.

[AussieNick]

For those who know can someone pm me the name, I've got a few mates on the 310s up here and I'm just hoping their ok.

RIP young fella. Another pilot gets his eternal wings

[flying-spike]

Darwin pilot killed in remote crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/06/3131051.htm?section=justin)

[AussieNick]

To all those that knew JS, my heart felt condolences to his family and the boys he worked with.

RIP Mate

[Mick.B]

Photo and name of the Pilot here.

Footy trip plane crashes, one killed | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/footy-trip-plane-crashes-one-killed/story-e6frfkxr-1226000991274)

[AnyGivenSunday99]

Regardless of the speculation of the cause of this terrible event, i find myself trying to find ways of dealing with my own emotions, especialy thinking of the heartbroken people that knew this brave young fellow well.

As most of us have, and some of us still are, we put our lives on hold to venture north, to follow our hearts and learn our craft as professional aviators. From all over Aus and NZ we come, united in a common goal... to live the dream.

It is a hard road, away from our families and friends, but none the less we have never been happier than when we are sitting in the drivers chair, two throttles in the palm of our right hand. The way others perceive us has always made me laugh - we must be doing well by the look of the shiny wings and bars on the uniform (if only they took a little walk with us to the carpark!) Perhaps it is the sparkle in the eye that fools them.

I could not begin to imagine how this has affected his Mum and Dad... Perhaps he has a girlfriend. I know mine worries about me every time i kiss her goodbye as I go off to work in the dark each morning.

Either way, we aviators will continue on, as that is the only way we know how. We are used to the hard knocks, and carry the scars - physical and emotional, of every lesson we have learned, and carry the dreams of our fallen comrades strong in our hearts.

Over the years, I have found the following to help me through at times like these. Though I don't know this fellow, my prayer is for those that do:

Flyer's Prayer

When this life I'm in is done,
And at the gates I stand,
My hope is that I answer all
His questions on command.

I doubt He'll ask me of my fame,
Or all the things I knew, Instead,
He'll ask of rainbows sent
On rainy days I flew.

The hours logged, the status reached,
The ratings will not matter.
He'll ask me if I saw the rays
And how He made them scatter.

Or what about the droplets clear,
I spread across your screen?
And did you see the twinkling eyes.
If student pilots keen?

The way your heart jumped in your chest,
That special solo day-
Did you take time to thank the one
Who fell along the way?

Remember how the runway lights
Looked one night long ago
When you were lost and found your way,
And how-you still dont know?

How fast, how far, how much, how high?
He'll ask me not these things
But did I take the time to watch
The Moonbeams wash my wings?

And did you see the patchwork fields
And moutains I did mould;
The mirrored lakes and velvet hills,
Of these did I behold?

The wind he flung along my wings,
On final almost stalled.
And did I know I it was His name,
That I so fearfully called?

And when the goals are reached at last,
When all the flyings done,
I'll answer Him with no regret-
Indeed, I had some fun.

So when these things are asked of me,
And I can reach no higher,
My prayer this day - His hand extends
To welcome home a Flyer.


Blue skies and tailwinds forever, friend. May you rest in peace. :ok:

[Spotlight]

Those God loves he takes early.

Slavering dogs like The Mentalist, can be left to stew in their own stupidity.

What engine failure, what poorly maintained aircraft?

[eternity]

What Mentalist is verbalising is what most of us think.

The area where the aircraft crashed was only a short dist. from the threshold.
Anyone who has spent any time in light twins (310, b58, 402-4, chief/nava) know that when an engine goes these poor things dont perform.
Anyone who has spent any time in GA knows that maintenance is not always the best and that things sometimes go "overlooked".

When we see a tragedy like this, naturally we all suspect EFATO and a subsequent Vmca.
Most of us however, dont pass these suspicions off as fact; preferring to wait for the official investigation.
Be prepared however.........for more 'backseat conclusions' from the 'faceless experts'.


So many of us have eagerly jumped into a 30+ year light twin to get those multi hours up. The poor OEI performance is just a risk that is accepted for those hours.
And most of us passed through without any major incidents like EFATO in a light twin.
Some of us however, don't.

To that young pilot - Blue skies and tail winds. Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family.


Eternity.

[Spotlight]

eternity

The real thing is different. In your time flying 520,s 540,s 550, etc have you had one breach a crankcase?

If this is the situation it will be readily apparent.

Have you, as a young pilot seen rising EGTs and thought (oh hell) I must have forgotten the cowl flaps and immediately reach down to find the cowl flap handle.

Live a little.

[Josh Cox]

Eternity,

Anyone who has spent any time in a C310 with one POB will know that it will easily climb OEI.

You guys a so full of crap it is embarrasing to read, there is no evidence, no credible witnesses and yet you already know all the answers, nice job.

Condolences to all involved.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Eternity he was alone...they may not perform very well at MTOW but they most certainly DO perform perfectly adequately lightly loaded. If EFATO is the finding then it won't be the aircrafts fault that it ended badly.

Is that rising terrain I see off the end of the runway - it was a night departure?

Edit I did not put the definition of EFATO in brackets after it - how weird:confused:

[ampk]

Very sad, To those very close I feel for you.
Have great respect for the BA boys.
Rummers are great but not a fact, those that speak way too early should hold their breath coz crapppp does stick.
The object is to be NO repeat no matter what the reason.

Life is special! Go well young man.

[AussieNick]

From the photos it looks like XGX but I thought that was MPAs machine?

[help me jebus]

11111111111

[Howard Hughes]

What Mentalist is verbalising is what most of us think.
It is?
When we see a tragedy like this, naturally we all suspect EFATO and a subsequent Vmca.
We do?

I think you will find the answer is far simpler...

[baron_beeza]

Anyone who has spent any time in GA knows that maintenance is not always the best and that things sometimes go "overlooked".

Sorry guys, I know we are on a sad topic here but I cannot let this one slip by also.
I have been involved in GA as both an LAME and pilot for over 30 years. After working all round the world on various contracts and in places in the Pacific, Asia and Africa I have noticed that thing do get overlooked.

AND where I am pointing the finger ........ the worst events are invariably by the young, and not so young pilots. A defect is a defect, you cannot ignore it during the pre-flight, you cannot carry it, mentioning it to your buddies.
I have worked on the 310's in Darwin... I could not believe some of the things overlooked... the guys in the hangar can't fix it if they are not aware of it.

For example, a seat recline issue is not fixed by jamming the control lock in the mechanism. Seat failures cause accidents and they occur at the worst possible time, just after rotate.......

Check the stats, seat failures versus engine failures (not the pilot induced ones but a genuine failure)....

I am not suggesting seat failures cause explosions mid-air mind you... I think the jury is still out on that one.
I am just saying that if we want to keep 30 yo aircraft to continue running in good working order then we all have a part to play.

I certify many aircraft engines for operation beyond recommended TBO.
After years of working on them, asking questions of the overhaul facility etc I have a fair idea of what causes engine failures... a genuine failure is a very rare occurrence.

A sad event and I feel for you guys up there.. difficult times for sure.

[Spotlight]

The little I know. A pretty regular charter at this time of the year to transport people home to their Island after the footy.

Well I don't know? , I have seen a number of young guys killed in airplanes over he years with their company chasing the dollar.

[The Mentalist]

Eternity & Baron Beeza, Thanks for putting my short prod into what I was trying to get across. If it was XGX from BA then condolences to the new pilot and a sad day for the company who struggles against the big ones and still gets the job done. I personally have over 40hrs on XGX when it was over at MPA and have worked for BA a few years ago. I also have been in/out of YBTI over 80 times and YSNB over 100 times in 3 years taking freight and pax so I should know the strips pretty well up on the Tiwi's. Have also flown the late M.Rioli a few times as well.
Yes a C310 will perform with 1 POB, but what if it was not clean? They tend to get about 100-150fpm if your lucky. Add gusting winds/Xwinds, a bit of wind shear at the north end of the runway? What if it wasn't setup for one engine climb? What if he thought that he could land straight ahead? What if he was disorientated by the dark and cloudy night? We Can all speculate until the cows come home but it won't change the fact the the aircraft is nearly 30+ years old. Lets just wait for the ATSB/Coroners report before we get onto the age V maintenace of old aircraft.I have flown it's sister ships on more than one occasion and they weren't much better. TBE being the better one.Some problems you can wear as your experience with the type accumilates. (450+hrs C310 in YPDN)

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

JS was an exceptional young bloke. He had more maturity when he started flying at 16 than many people twice his age and was an exceptional student. I feel sure that if there had been any possible way to survive whatever happened to his aircraft, he would have.

RIP mate. :(

[ampk]

Mental case..
N you have hrs on this type??
QUOTE__

Yes a C310 will perform with 1 POB, but what if it was not clean? They tend to get about 100-150fpm if your lucky. Add gusting winds/Xwinds, a bit of wind shear at the north end of the runway? What if it wasn't setup for one engine climb? What if he thought that he could land straight ahead? What if he was disorientated by the dark and cloudy night?

What is all the training for???

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

non reflectave (sic) people
your (sic) an aboriginal vb drinking pilot???
You did not decide to leave but could not maintain employment

FFS you guys make pilots look like callous and racist idiots.

By all means keep up the debate with facts and speculation but damn it lay off the unprofessional and disrespectful banter; if your pointer hovers over the submit button and you wonder whether or not it's a good idea to click it... DON'T!

I sit here reading posts and awaiting a real report; anxious to hear about another way these damned machines can get me.

Safety always folks,

FRQ CB

[Much Ado]

There will be NO MORE comments like the above - the next person that does will be banned from this site permanently - right down to his IP address.:mad:

Unbelievable:ugh:

[PLovett]

My condolences to family and friends of the deceased pilot.

My total respect to members of the Nguiu community for willingly spending a night in mangrove swamps to protect the body of the pilot from the numerous crocs that infest that area. In many ways, members of the Aboriginal community have more respect for the dead than we supposedly better educated lot.

[Mainframe]

I think Howard Hughes and Chuck are closer to the mark.

This has all the hallmarks of a classic "Black Hole Departure" .

Take off was at night, in an area devoid of ground lighting, with possible showers.

Somatogravic illusions can create a sensation of over rotating, causing a pilot to relax back pressure.

An empty C310, Baron, Chieftain or Shrike can accellerate quite rapidly, this is the intro to the somatogravic illusion,
with the vestibular senses reacting to the accelleration.

The typical Black Hole departure accident scenario is usually a gentle descent with a tendancy to veer slightly left.

Impact is typically around 1.4 km from rotation.

Recent examples are the Chieftain at Bathurst, and a while back, the C90 at Wondai, Qld.

Training can make the pilot aware of the somatogravic effect, and the defense is attitude flying.

After lift off the aircraft is set up for 8 degrees nose up while in the take off configuration and,
after gear / flap retraction, an attitude of 12 degrees nose up should be established.

These simple attitudes guarantee Blue Line (Vyse).

Performance is monitored against the VSI and altimeter, and slight attitude corrections ensure the desired airspeed.

Very few GA training outfits teach attitude flying, this can be verified by watching twins taking off and held in a level attitude to attain blue line.

Lester Neideck, Sunshine Coast Air Charter was probably one of the last to teach attitude flying.

When pilots finally get to airlines, that is usually their first intro to setting attitude flying.

[troppont]

Sad sad news about JS, a great guy!

I know that JS was a BA pilot, but isn't XGX a CA aircraft, they took it over from MPA and had it based in Tindal for a while. From memory I though that BA and CA lend each other pilots and aircraft when required. Although that might have changed over the years.

I guess in the end it doesn't really mater, a young life has been lost.

[Tankengine]

Mainframe, excellent post.
Whether or not this was the case it is something for all to think about.
A C310 was destroyed [pilot OK] on a night take-off at Longreach about 22-23 years ago exactly because of this. In talking to pilot later [I was his ex CP, then newly in airlines] he described his training and it was crap [by that ex real estate salesman at Coolangatta]:yuk:
At night attitude flying after rotate until above 500' and on x-wind is the go!:ok:

[PLovett]

There is no mystyical seeing you into the after any more than police tape around a car crash at Elizabeth.

Nothing mystical about it at all. I just remember that when a friend died at an Aboriginal community a few years ago they honoured him by "singing" him out of the community while his employer couldn't be bothered to take the time to go there to see the crash site.

[Kulwin Park]

Anyone who has spent any time in a C310 with one POB will know that it will easily climb OEI.

You guys a so full of crap it is embarrasing to read, there is no evidence, no credible witnesses and yet you already know all the answers, nice job.

So mr Josh Cox .... how does your comment be justified if you are on a mission, and normally fully loaded to max limit, as they are normally are!

They are not on Joy Flights up there, so have you been fully loaded to max, and had to go OEI???

Just a thought.

Condolences to JS - a great shame :(

[Xcel]

^^ justified comment

on his way home as sole occupant. He was only speaking of this flight not others.

Rip js and sorry to all close friends and family, he was a terrific bloke.

Pilot of aircraft departed immediatly after is a good mate and said he spoke to him right before take off. Fatigue and experience in area not a factor. Awaiting Atsb repot as should the rest.

R

[PLovett]

KP, I suggest you read the thread again. :rolleyes:

The previous poster's comments, who you have ridiculed, were in relation to the specifics of the crash, not some generic comment about engine failures in light twins. :=

There was only the pilot on board the aircraft, in addition, on a flight to Bathurst Island the aircraft would not have required much fuel, even if a TEMPO was required. In fact, if he had taken five passengers there, and presumably baggage, you could not have much fuel otherwise you would be over MTOW. :uhoh:

[The Green Goblin]

A few of us have been discussing it via PM.

Judging from the position of the crash site, it is probably not an engine failure and subsequent loss of control, as the impact point is pretty much on the runway centerline.

Somotographic illusion may be a contributing factor however, witnesses reported 'flames'.

Whatever happened to the poor bugger was catastrophic, and I'm sure he gave it his best shot to get home.

If you look at the sequence of events, it almost looks as if was most surely operating to a 'higher' plan. It was a crosshired charter to another company. The aeroplane was a crosshire. The Pilot who was crosshired, was flying the companies aeroplane who was crosshiring him.

Had the aeroplane had it's SIDS program completed? How long ago was it done? Who did it? Was it done in house?

GG

[Josh Cox]

KP,

What Plovett said.

on a mission

Urghh ?, do you mean a Charter ?.

[bythenumbers]

So mr Josh Cox .... how does your comment be justified if you are on a mission, and normally fully loaded to max limit, as they are normally are!

They are not on Joy Flights up there, so have you been fully loaded to max, and had to go OEI??? :rolleyes:

Im sorry Kulwin Park but what is the climb performance in your fully loaded ME aircraft engaged in IFR Charter?

Im only asking as I assume you have figured it out.

And I also assume as PIC you have taken into accountCAO 20.7.4 para 8.1
If not here is a little piece... "Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1% at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere"

As no weight is specified it means at any weight the minimun is 1% and please take note of the word MUST. If it cant do it, its not legal. Enough said.

RIP JS. May you now fly higher than any of us could dream to. :ok:

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
So mr Josh Cox .... how does your comment be justified if you are on a mission, and normally fully loaded to max limit, as they are normally are!

They are not on Joy Flights up there, so have you been fully loaded to max, and had to go OEI???


Im sorry Kulwin Park but what is the climb performance in your fully loaded ME aircraft engaged in IFR Charter?

Im only asking as I assume you have figured it out.

And I also assume as PIC you have taken into account CAO 20.7.4 para 8.1
If not here is a little piece... "Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1% at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere"

As no weight is specified it means at any weight the minimun is 1% and please take note of the word MUST. If it cant do it, its not legal. Do I assume too much. Enough said.

RIP JS. May you now fly higher than any of us could dream to.

Just because it says so, does not mean it can. It is like Rex saying cadet Pilots are as good as direct entry Pilots. They can spin it all they like, word from the line drivers and check Captains suggest otherwise.

I take it from your moniker that you're one of them hey! (statement, not a question) A healthy respect for what an aeroplane can do and 'should' do in certain situations is paramount in your early flying career.

Good luck with it!

[bythenumbers]

GG you would assume wrongly I'm afraid when it regards my moniker, it has saved my ass (and others im sure) more times than I'd care to remember.. And let me give you some advice with reference to.. A healthy respect for what an aeroplane can do and 'should' do in certain situations is paramount in your early flying career.
Delete the word early ;)

[The Mentalist]

The Three sisters to this A/C (TBE,TBG,DVN) are all C310R and all perform differently, ranging from rotate speed to leave the runway to climb speed on two engines and CHT's at/below redline. One will fly 10kts faster than another in the cruise. On a medium sector (eg;YMgd-Ypdn) one will arrive 5-8mins quicker. cruise climb one will climb at 500fpm the other will just manage 300-350fpm. So even though they are the same aircraft and proabaly built within a few months/year of each other they aren't the same.
Not sure if you are aware, there is another aircraft in the area of the crash from a few years ago. (Maybe 2007?) A Beech Bonanza going to the TIWI Is footy grand Final and crashed on approach just to the north of the runway.

[404 Titan]

bythenumbers

And I also assume as PIC you have taken into accountCAO 20.7.4 para 8.1
If not here is a little piece... "Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1% at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere"

As no weight is specified it means at any weight the minimun is 1% and please take note of the word MUST. If it cant do it, its not legal. Enough said.
If you are implying it is illegal to fly a piston twin in charter under the IFR fully loaded in conditions that are hotter than the standard atmosphere then you are most definitely wrong. CAO 20.7.4 para 8.1 only states that the aircraft must be capable of achieving the quoted OEI performance at MTOW in the “standard atmosphere”. There is no legal requirement for it to be able to achieve those OEI climb performance figures in conditions that are hotter than ISA and it most certainly doesn’t imply that it is illegal to fly one when it is hotter than ISA. As long as the aircraft can achieve the required normal performance figures in the POH then it is legal to fly, period. Any interpretation outside this is wrong.

[Spotlight]

I despair at the level of thinking of some of you young blokes. (here anyway)

What engine failure? The aircraft hit the ground right on extended centreline.

Two previous posters have given good mail. Attitude, on the take-off primary concern is going straight and going up!

I too knew the pilot of the 310 at Longreach, airborne he thought it imperative to turn the landing lights off. Right hand reaching over his body to find them on the left panel, looking down of course.

Truth be told he probably hit the gangbar for the mags.

[MyNameIsIs]

Judging from the position of the crash site, it is probably not an engine failure and subsequent loss of control, as the impact point is pretty much on the runway centerline.

Somotographic illusion may be a contributing factor however, witnesses reported 'flames'.



GG, this has occurred to myself and others that I have talked to.
Without me speculating as to what actually caused this crash, it is indeed possible that the "flames" that have been reported were from the impact. As the site looks like it is on top of some rising terrain, to an observer on the ground the aircraft may have looked like it was still 'in the air'.

I was somewhat hesitant to post that possibility due to the feeling that I would receive the inevitable "you don't know" type comments, however as it has been mentioned previously without seemingly angering anyone, I thought I would.


Of course it is also possible that something else completely different happened. We will have to wait and see, but in the mean time civilised conversation about the accident and what could be contributing factors should be seen as ok and a chance to perhaps understand and learn more.


Thoughts go out to the young fella's family and friends. I'm sure he was chasing the same dream that we all have.
Havn't been in the Darwin scene myself, but from everything I've heard about the place I'm sure the rest of the crew up there will have had a few beers for Jamie. It's sh!t to lose mates flying.

[bythenumbers]

Titan: What I am implying is that whatever the conditions are... If crunching the numbers gives a Density Altitude 5000' or lower and the aircraft can't make 1% Climb at a given TOW then YES, it is illegal.

Its not the PIC's fault if the aircraft cant make it, but the PIC has the responsability to know what the aircraft will and wont do and decide if he/she should proceed.

You only need to look to our short history in aviation to see how pilots both GA and airline get hung out to dry if they break rules, limitations etc.. and live to tell the tale.

I didn't know is not an excuse in court.

[404 Titan]

bythenumbers

You have forgotten to mention that to achieve the required OEI climb performance mentioned in CAO 20.7.4 para 8.1, then a number of performance criteria must be met. They being:

• Propeller of inoperative engine stopped, i.e. feathered.
• Undercarriage (if retractable) and flaps retracted.
• Remaining engine(s) operating at maximum continuous power.
• Airspeed not less than 1.2 VS.

I am sure you would also be aware that by the time all the above conditions are met plus achieving Vyse (blue line at MTOW) or the decision point if one is used, i.e. from a long runway, the aircraft will be at least 2-300ft. Until then there is absolutely no requirement to achieve a 1% climb gradient. After all the title of CAO 20.7.4 para 8.1 “EN-ROUTE CLIMB PERFORMANCE” implies in itself that the aircraft must be clean.

Having said all that it would appear to me though that other things were at play that may have cause this accident.

[CaptainInsaneO]

"Without me speculating as to what actually caused this crash, it is indeed possible that the "flames" that have been reported were from the impact. As the site looks like it is on top of some rising terrain, to an observer on the ground the aircraft may have looked like it was still 'in the air'."

Agreed.

Again, without speculating as to the cause of the accident (we shall leave this in the professional hands of the ATSB) but if you were looking up at the crash which was some distance away, you would expect to see an explosion, then shortly afterwards you will hear the engines stop, even though this may of happened at the same instance. As light travels faster than sound.

For the untrained (and petrified) observer, I could see how they could of mistakenly said there was an explosion before the engines stopped.

[bythenumbers]

Titan: You are correct with regards to the grey area from rotation till the aircraft is in the specified configuration. A point that most will never experience an engine failure (genuine) anyway. Bad spot to find out the Aux's are selected though.

I was not specifically commenting on this accident rather replying to kulwins generalised comment that a twin at MTOW wont perform.

So many young guys and gals flog around in twins these days with not the slightest respect for the regs which are put there to protect them. :ugh:

Just to be clear: This comment is not directed at the current thread topic or pilot involved.

[lurker999]

i don't think it's rising terrain there. i suspect it's actually slightly downhill to the crash site.

if it's uphill or downhill it's within a metre or two.

[strim]

For what it's worth, I've had two AI failures in the past month in different aircraft, one VMC, one IMC.

VMC, easy to detect. IMC, a few moments of 'this feels f'ing wrong' before I picked it up. Autopilot off and recovered on Standby AI from about 20 AoB and 5 degrees nose down. No biggie at altitude.

Having an AI let go on rotation on a cloudy night with a black hole in front of you: That is a biggie.

Perhaps this pilot was trained well and new all about OEI performance requirements and the somatographic illusion. Perhaps, like me, he knew about AI failures. Perhaps, unlike me, he didn't have enough sky below...

:(

[The Green Goblin]

By the Numbers

By your posting I am positive you are a multi engine instructor - who has never done anything but.

Yes a Seneca or Duchess will climb perfectly well, with a couple of POB in most situations around Australia. Where we operate piston charter twins most of the time, they certainly won't.

The key - is to expect the aeroplane not to perform and plan accordingly, then be surprised when it does. It certainly is not a happy day when you are expecting performance, and it does not (a friend of mine was taken recently because of this). Chimbu Chuckles once said something quite profound. He never expects an engine to perform for the duration of a flight, and is pleasantly surprised when it does. I think you should adopt the same attitude, and plan accordingly, then accept the reality of your piston twin performance.

The 1% climb gradient to 5000 feet needs to be also explained (slowly just for you). If you are grounding 100 knots, that is only a 100 ftpm ROC. Now you could be achieving this, and losing this PLUS MORE, in thermal turbulence and down-droughts. 100 fpm ROC is not something that is going to give you much love. In simple terms it will take you 10 mins to climb 1000 feet. This will also put you 16 miles or so from where you started. Unless you are taking off from a flat island in the middle of the ocean, once you are outside the protection of the circling area you will surely be below the 10/25nm MSA and en-route LSALT.

If you want guaranteed performance, fly something certified to achieve it (under 20.7.1b). Even then, sometimes due to the nature of the beast - you can not necessarily rely on it.

Let's also get this straight, the 1% climb gradient is only required in ISA (along with the other performance requirements) conditions. They are certainly not required to achieve this performance in ISA+ under their certification. As the operating Pilot, you are also not required to ensure they can. You are just required to understand the limitations. If you want to maintain these margins, you will never be able to operate piston twins with more than a couple of POB in ISA+ conditions.

Before you start crapping on about how they should be banned if this is the case, why do you happily fly in singles? A piston twin is basically a single engine aeroplane with the engine divided by two and bolted to the wings. Treat is as such, and you will not have a problem.

As for the accident, this does not appear to be the cause of it, so lets put this one to bed.

Next.

[bythenumbers]

Goblin. Judging by your post count its clear that you are likely be the m/e instructor with more time to troll pprune than actually get out and fly. However I am not going to judge you on your pprune merit as that would be foolish indeed. You clearly have not read any of my posts with much attention as at no time did I say 1% would keep you out of the trees.

Now run along back into the woods where you can from and stop scaring the children.

[The Green Goblin]

Im sorry Kulwin Park but what is the climb performance in your fully loaded ME aircraft engaged in IFR Charter?

As no weight is specified it means at any weight the minimun is 1% and please take note of the word MUST. If it cant do it, its not legal. Enough said.

Sounds to me like you are trying to imply that it is legislated that is should climb, therefore it should.

Titan: What I am implying is that whatever the conditions are... If crunching the numbers gives a Density Altitude 5000' or lower and the aircraft can't make 1% Climb at a given TOW then YES, it is illegal.

I think you will find, that in ISA (below a 5000 pressure height), the charts will always suggest a positive rate of climb at max weight. After all, that is the certification requirement.

So many young guys and gals flog around in twins these days with not the slightest respect for the regs which are put there to protect them.

You are there to protect you and your passengers. Once it all goes pear shaped - you can act in any means necessary to save your aeroplane and passengers. The only thing the regs will be good for at this point, is being thrown overboard to save a bit of weight!

Goblin. Judging by your post count its clear that you are likely be the m/e instructor with more time to troll pprune than actually get out and fly. However I am not going to judge you on your pprune merit as that would be foolish indeed. You clearly have not read any of my posts with much attention as at no time did I say 1% would keep you out of the trees.

Now run along back into the woods where you can from and stop scaring the children.

You're starting to clutch at straws mate, and by the PMs I have received, many others feel the same.

As for my history, I don't even need to justify it. Most on here know.

[Kulwin Park]

Quote:
Im sorry Kulwin Park but what is the climb performance in your fully loaded ME aircraft engaged in IFR Charter?

As no weight is specified it means at any weight the minimun is 1% and please take note of the word MUST. If it cant do it, its not legal. Enough said.
Sounds to me like you are trying to imply that it is legislated that is should climb, therefore it should. Green Goblin said.

As to far above, Yes I meant Charter instead of Mission. Also I will apologise, as I did find an article later on a news site browsing through that the pilot had dropped off passengers, and was flying away empty. I made an implication that the pilot could have been on a fully fuelled and loaded charter, being max weight. This does happen all over Australia, so my comment was meant to be general, not specific to this incident we talk about here.

The old police 310's up north used to be an example of fully fuelled, max POB, and fly off into distance, all very well trained and cultured to conditions and environment, but if something had gone wrong, then similar situation may have arisen to accident. It's not different to anywhere else in the world, accidents happen unexplained, until investigated to cause by local officials.

I was just implying initially (or thinking in my head really) that we are trying to get away with more, still using older aircraft, pushed to their max limits their whole life. In the above case, maybe it was nothing to do with age of aircraft, just something went wrong, with fireball reported on aircraft prior to it connecting with the ground.

[43Inches]

As the operating Pilot, you are also not required to ensure they can. You are just required to understand the limitations. If you want to maintain these margins, you will never be able to operate piston twins with more than a couple of POB in ISA+ conditions.

CAO 20.7.4 states the weight limitations for a light aircraft in charter or airwork operations. Weight control is a responsibility of the Pilot in Command.


4 TAKE-OFF WEIGHT LIMITATIONS

4.1 An aeroplane must not take off at a weight in excess of the least of the weights determined in accordance with subparagraphs (a) to (d):

(a) a weight at which the take-off distance required under subsection 6 for the pressure height, temperature, runway slope (if in excess of 1%) and wind component along the runway, is equal to or less than the take-off distance available in the direction of take-off. Approved declared conditions may be used instead of actual pressure height and temperature;

(b) a weight which will permit compliance with the take-off climb requirements specified in subsection 7 taking into account ambient temperature and pressure height. Approved declared temperature and pressure height may be used instead of ambient conditions;

(c) a weight which will permit compliance with the en-route climb requirements specified in subsection 8;

(d) a weight which, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight and taking into account either the forecast temperature and pressure or approved declared conditions, will permit compliance with the landing distance limitations specified in subsection 10 related to the longest available landing length under conditions of zero wind.


These are not certification requirements they are day to day based except for the enroute climb requirement which is ISA based. That is they must be calculated for the intended operation.

The Seminole (non-turbo), Seneca I and Travelair are examples of aircraft which do not meet the 1% to 5000 requirement and MTOW must be reduced for IFR charter and airwork in these aircraft. They were made to just make the FAA certification requirement of maintaining 5000ft in ISA.

The rule only makes reference to manufacturers data for take-off and landing distance calculations, and to factor them if there is no evidence that they have been. It also intends that the particular aircraft is to be considered, not type, not a fresh from factory aircraft etc... If you know that your aircraft can not comply with these rules you are operating it illegally.

The manufacturer provides basic data, it is up to the pilot to use the data apply factors and determine if the weight at take-off meets the legal requirements. How you approach this problem with what factors for a 40 year old piston up North is another debate.

[VH-XXX]

Certainly looks like rising terrain... or is it down a hill and green towards a creek perhaps?


http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/02/06/1226001/000316-jamie-stephens.jpg

[compressor stall]

That's not a hill - it's a vegetation change from scrub to greener mangroves. Check it out on Google Earth.

[bentleg]

or is it down a hill and green towards a creek perhaps?


That's not a hill - it's a vegetation change from scrub to greener mangroves.

I think so........Melville Is WAC shows no high ground, same for the YBTI Rwy 15 RNAV approach (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/pending/dap/BTIGN01-124.pdf). Google Earth shows a creek.

[Xcel]

CAO 20.7.4 states the weight limitations for a light aircraft in charter or airwork operations. Weight control is a responsibility of the Pilot in Command.


Quote:
4 TAKE-OFF WEIGHT LIMITATIONS

4.1 An aeroplane must not take off at a weight in excess of the least of the weights determined in accordance with subparagraphs (a) to (d):

(a) a weight at which the take-off distance required under subsection 6 for the pressure height, temperature, runway slope (if in excess of 1%) and wind component along the runway, is equal to or less than the take-off distance available in the direction of take-off. Approved declared conditions may be used instead of actual pressure height and temperature;

(b) a weight which will permit compliance with the take-off climb requirements specified in subsection 7 taking into account ambient temperature and pressure height. Approved declared temperature and pressure height may be used instead of ambient conditions;

(c) a weight which will permit compliance with the en-route climb requirements specified in subsection 8;

(d) a weight which, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight and taking into account either the forecast temperature and pressure or approved declared conditions, will permit compliance with the landing distance limitations specified in subsection 10 related to the longest available landing length under conditions of zero wind.

These are not certification requirements they are day to day based except for the enroute climb requirement which is ISA based. That is they must be calculated for the intended operation.

The Seminole (non-turbo), Seneca I and Travelair are examples of aircraft which do not meet the 1% to 5000 requirement and MTOW must be reduced for IFR charter and airwork in these aircraft. They were made to just make the FAA certification requirement of maintaining 5000ft in ISA.

The rule only makes reference to manufacturers data for take-off and landing distance calculations, and to factor them if there is no evidence that they have been. It also intends that the particular aircraft is to be considered, not type, not a fresh from factory aircraft etc... If you know that your aircraft can not comply with these rules you are operating it illegally.

The manufacturer provides basic data, it is up to the pilot to use the data apply factors and determine if the weight at take-off meets the legal requirements. How you approach this problem with what factors for a 40 year old piston up North is another debate.

Why did you bold the Take off performance (b)? (your bolding not mine) This is a requirement for ALL engines operating and doesnt corelate with your arguement at all. Only shows how little you understand of these requirements

The enroute requirement is for ISA in the clean configuration.

ISA is not normal in Australia's North.

This requirement of 1% is also a requirement for certification and is calculated by the manufacturer to comply with "including" degredation of performance from airframe and engine's for their workable lifetime.

And on that note please point me to the chart and performace calculations for "reducing" payload to ensure compliance with aircraft age and ISA changes to comply with 1%. My AFM seems to be missing this chapter...

We all know, as has been stated on this thread, that a MTOW light twin will struggle to maintain any climb under certain conditions. You should always fly with an escape route up your sleeve. This is why we make an emergency pre-takoff brief isn't it?

In this instance fuel exhaustion/starvation, a/h topple, or illusions on t/o seem a more likely cause for the accident. However that isn't as easy a target as the - OMG light twins are bad mkaaaay.

In any case i digress...

Poor bloke has lost his life doing the best he could with what he had at the time. The rest should await the atsb report...

condolensces once again to those close.

R

[The Green Goblin]

Geez, the posts on here are indication of some severe lack in operational (and legislative) knowledge.

The reg you are quoting 43inches is for both engines operating, and being able to comply with a SID climb gradient for instance.

Xcel, well said.

[43Inches]

Why did you bold the Take off performance (b)? (your bolding not mine) This is a requirement for ALL engines operating and doesnt corelate with your arguement at all. Only shows how little you understand of these requirements

The bolding highlights climb performance requirements, i'm not arguing single or multi, though some twins may actually struggle to meet the 6% requirement high weight with gear down at TOSS at ISA +20 in low density conditions (tropics). The chieftain does not have a chart for this either and extrapolating from the take-off over a 50ft barrier the aircraft climbs between 4.5-5.5% from lift off to the barrier at max weight at high temps..


And on that note please point me to the chart and performace calculations for "reducing" payload to ensure compliance with aircraft age and ISA changes to comply with 1%. My AFM seems to be missing this chapter...


Where are the factors for grass, wet surface etc in a chieftain manual?

There are standard factors for these available but they are very general in nature.

You are proving your lack of understanding in that the 1% requirement is only required to be calculated in ISA. It does not need to be checked for each flight, that is the MTOW limited aircraft will have the same limit at any temperature/density.


The reg you are quoting 43inches is for both engines operating, and being able to comply with a SID climb gradient for instance.


What are you on about? The CAO is in regard to any aeroplane below 5700kg enganged in private, charter or airwork operations, excluding agricultural. It is the minimum performance the aircraft must have in order to conduct the operation and is not related to any procedure such as a SID etc. SIDs have a design gradient of 3.3% or higher and do not take into acount engine failure in any aircraft.

Here is subsections 7 & 8 for your benefit;



7 TAKE-OFF CLIMB PERFORMANCE
7.1 In the take-off configuration with landing gear extended, an aeroplane must have the ability to achieve a climb gradient of 6% at take-off safety speed, without ground effect, and with all engines operating at take-off power.

8 EN-ROUTE CLIMB PERFORMANCE
8.1 Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1% at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere in the following configuration:

(a) propeller of inoperative engine stopped;
(b) undercarriage (if retractable) and flaps retracted;

[The Green Goblin]

You are proving your lack of understanding in that the 1% requirement is only required to be calculated in ISA. It does not need to be checked for each flight, that is the MTOW limited aircraft will have the same limit at any temperature/density.

You're proving your lack of understanding by thinking xcel was implying that this is the case.

He was laughing at you, for implying that you had to ensure you meet the minimum 1% climb gradient below 5000 feet.

[PLovett]

It's flat as a tack north of airfield. The photo is deceptive due to the colour changes of the vegetation. The dark green is mangrove trees on the edge of a creek then there is the lighter green of the scrub.

At this stage, in the absence of any more definitive information, it looks awfully like somatogravic illusion has trapped this fellow. It always crossed my mind as a possibility every time I taxied out at Tennant Creek at night. I can also remember a discussion about it on PPRuNe years ago and the recommendation then was attitude flying but the suggestion was an initial 5 degrees then after gear retraction go to just under 10.

Personally, I always transition to instruments on takeoff at night and have used that initial 5 then 8 degree attitude.

[compressor stall]

I remember as a newly rated NVFR PPL taking off on a black night. Something did not seem right at the time during early climb and I quickly went to instruments. I remember once in the cruise being a bit confused about what went on shortly after departure. My training had not covered the illusion, but had covered the importance of the AH.

It was only a year or so later that I read about the somatogravic illusion and the penny dropped.

For those interested, in my part of the world the illusion can happen during the day in white out conditions too...:8

-----------------------------
And maybe the mods could move single engine performance issues to another thread of its own? The discussion and errors in the discussion are likely not relevant here, but it's an important argument to have to thrash out the truth from the heresay and misunderstanding. May I also suggest the protagonists study the aircraft certification FARs... :uhoh:

[Brian Abraham]

can happen during the day in white out conditions too...Can happen in the most innocuous of conditions to very experienced aviators.

Test pilot was up in a Vampire on a beautiful day. Come time to land the sole weather impediment for a thousand miles was a single thunderstorm bearing down on the field. Lost sight of the landing enviroment on short, short final when flying into the rain shaft and overshot. Somatogravic raised its head and aircraft impacted some distance to the left of the runway. Survived but confined to a wheelchair.

[pilotboy13]

anyone know if a funeral is planned for Darwin, pm if want to keep private.

[Van Gough]

I once had an AH fail on rotation and show a marked pitch up. Also no warning flag came up. Had it have been a dark night or IMC I would have probably flown it straight into the ground trusting the instruments. Luckily it was day VMC...

[compressor stall]

It is too early to judge these events, and hopefully not too much of a thread drift, but tales like Van Gough's above are fantastic reading for everybody. Please keep them coming. These things do happen and when people just get away with it, it does not make the crash comics and noone gets to learn.

This discussion raises awareness that might save a life of some young bloke or blokette one day. These short stories - like Van Gough's or Brian Abraham's - are more forceful than the "what went wrong" tales in the fancy toilet paper that turns up every two months.

[Servo]

For Jamie and all the aviators that are now eternally flying.

Glod Bless.

Rest In Peace.

YouTube - Angel's Wings by Marisa (with Lyrics) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr2AsjtRygw&feature=related)

[Bug4514]

Nice one servo, I think the guy's are missing the point above.

[Jack Ranga]

There's one departure I used to do into pitch black that was one of these somatogravic thingys. Every time I did that departure I'd sit on the end of the runway for a minute or two for last minute checks and run through how I was going to perform it.

Some of the fellas used to get the autopilot on as soon as possible after departure, I didn't trust myself to look away from the A/H (and the others) to flick any switch let alone the autopilot. No power reductions til everything was sorted.

Poor bugger

[maralinga]

Scan, scan, scan.......set the attitude that gives the required airspeed and cross reference with the ASI and VSI.......relying on the A/H alone or holding arbitrary attitudes on the A/H without confirming its effect is just lining up the holes in the swiss cheese.

[The Mentalist]

Years ago training for NVFR, on rotation to the south of YMEN (Rwy 17?) AH toppled upside down. Not much of a problem after all these years of night and IF flying but back then it was a bit of a scare. Fast forward to 2009, C210 IFR Wet Season Darwin same thing, partial AH topple but in cloud & rain at 1200ft. A/P won't engage as it relied on the AH. Scan, Scan, Scan with limited turns to get back, then I see the airport thru a break in the cloud. Oh well no big drama.
Read in the local Paper that the poor pilot was X-hired from BA to CA to do the flight as CA were short of drivers that night. The things we do to chase those illusive night hours for ATPL.
R.I.P Jamie. Chin up TB Your doing a great job.

[Josh Cox]

Read in the local Paper that the poor pilot was X-hired from BA to CA to do the flight as CA were short of drivers that night

From The Australian, some three or four days ago:

Mr Stephens's Barrier Air five-seater, chartered by Chartair, had just dropped off Tiwi Bombers footballers who were returning home following a match in Darwin on Saturday

In a written statement, Chartair chief executive Adrian Leach said the crash was a tragic accident. He extended his company's sympathy to Mr Stephens's family, friends and colleagues.


Sounds to me like someone was telling porkies when this all happened. The owner of the AOC being used was not BA by the sound of this ?...........IMHO that is a callous attempt to divert the lime light, even if only by inference, shameful if that is the case.

No, I do not work for BA.

[The Mentalist]

Josh, I am refering to what the Mgr of BA was quoted in the NT News. I know this has been done in the past as I was one that was used like that.
Then again the Australian is quoted as saying "a 5-seater plane" when we all know the 310 is a 6-seater.

[The Green Goblin]

Then again the Australian is quoted as saying "a 5-seater plane" when we all know the 310 is a 6-seater.

It's a 5 seater, you can't count the pilot seat - it's non revenue!

I.E you don't call a Metro a 21 seater, you call it a 19 seat commuter etc etc.

[tio540]

Josh Cox are you serious?

[Josh Cox]

Yes, why, what is it you do not understand about my questions ?.

Who's AOC etc etc are very real questions with very real outcomes on the horizon (coronial enquiry etc etc ).

For example, who has a lease contract on the aircraft, i.e. BA or CA ?:

CASA Search -- CASA Aircraft Register (http://casa-query.funnelback.com/search/search.cgi?collection=casa_aircraft_register&collection=casa_aircraft_register&form=&query=&meta_v_sand=xgx&Search=Search&session=1344335542)

[morno]

Josh could have a very good point. CASA may be about to go to town on this one if there are some irregularities.

While the pilot was from BA, he was operating what appears to be a Chartair flight. Had he signed the Chartair operations manual? Had he conducted a base check by Chartair? Was he subject to Chartair flight and duty, or Barrier flight and duty?

A tragic accident none the less and brought a few tingles to the spine, knowing that he was simply following the path of many before him (myself included).

Rest In Peace buddy, I'm sure you made many proud getting as far as you did.

morno

[Nose wheel first]

Guys, I think you'll find that it's a fairly regular event in Darwin (and some other places too) to have one company sub-contract out a charter or part of a charter to another company.

ie; Company A picks up a charter for 4 aircraft to Timbuktu but only has 2 aircraft available. They then decide to call company B and ask if they can make up the shortfall with two aircraft.

As far as company B is concerned they are being hired to conduct a charter in their own right. It just so happens that they are being paid for that charter by another operator. The charter is conducted in their own aircraft and under their own AOC.

Hope I explained that well enough.... it's getting late and the brain isn't working too well tonight.

[eeper23]

Nose Wheel First,

You are 100% correct in what you are saying, however may not be the case in this scenario.

What they are questioning is if the aircraft belonged to CA or BA? If it belonged to BA then its fair game, however if it was a CA aircraft with a BA pilot operating it, I think CA will be recieving a visit from CASA, because then the BA pilot wouldnt be operating under the BA AOC, and instead the CA AOC. Then the questions morno is asking are very fair questions.

That aircraft is leased out to companys to operate - and it used to belong to MPA in Maningrida. So the big question is which company was leasing this aircraft when it sadly went down?

[Josh Cox]

I am not aware of an AOC being required to employ a pilot and then hire or lend said pilot to another organisation.

Not aware of any restriction on pilots working for more than one operator ( CP excluded from that statement ).

I am however certain that, operating an aircraft on a charter does require an AOC.

Has BA ever operated XGX ?.

[compressor stall]

Guys, I think you'll find that it's a fairly regular event in Darwin (and some other places too) to have one company sub-contract out a charter or part of a charter to another company.

Sure is, I did my fair share of airport tarting around Darwin a decade ago.

Where it got (gets?) really murky though, is when as a charter pilot with a charter maintained aircraft with a charter AOC only you get subcontracted in to do the RPT run to YBTI....

[Horatio Leafblower]

Josh.

I am however certain that, operating an aircraft on a charter does require an AOC. Has BA ever operated XGX ?

Charter aircraft are not specified by S/N and Rego on an AOC, although RPT are. The questions about who is doing what, with which and to whom for how much will be clear enough from the facts of the case.

If the pilot was "lent" to the other company, he should have been checked out in accordance with that company's Ops Manual C&T manual and subject to their SOPs etc.

If the charter was sub-contracted to the pilot's employer, then he is operating under his employer's AOC, C&T system, SOPs.



CS,

That's not murky - there is a paragraph or 20 in the CAO's about charter substitution on RPT and the requirement that it be approved by CASA.

The rule book is quite clear on it. Dodgy - perhaps. Murky - no :suspect:

[Josh Cox]

Charter aircraft are not specified by S/N and Rego on an AOC, although RPT are.

Yes, quite aware of that.

Who is the operator of the aircraft is the question, in my link above, neither BA or CA is listed as the aircrafts operator, so:

* Who has a written contract with the owner of the aircraft ( and pays the owner money every month ? ) ?, and,

* Who is invoicing the football club, or whoever is paying for the Charter ?.

[megle2]

A written contract to use the aircraft? Is that mandatory?
You could also ask who was the HAAMC for the aircraft

[Flying Bear]

Gents,

I can see nothing in the last half dozen or so posts that would be causal to the accident - rather, just the appearance of blame shifting.

Sadly, I think that we might find that the root cause of this accident will be something like somatogravic effects causing spatial disorientation, or if the engine failure theory is found to have merit, then an inability to maintain control of the aircraft subsequent to that (a difficult ask, but given the likely AUW, certainly do-able from a performance standpoint). Alternatively, perhaps an AI failure of some description which would be disorienting in the extreme (anyone having done this in the sim would, I hope, agree that hand flying an aircraft in a flight critical sequence (ie take-off) with a misleading attitude reference and no external cues would be amongst the most demanding flying tasks...). I'll wait for the ATSB on all this.

Who owns the aircraft is irrelevant from a flight safety standpoint. Who the charter operator was is irrelevant from a flight safety standpoint. These questions may ultimately become relevant from a legal / liability perspective though, and I will be interested to see where this aspect goes in the fullness of time - but it doesn't really produce positive energy at this time.

However, no one here seems to have raised the issue of pilot training and recency. If I know my charter companies, some have CAR 217 organisations (ie somewhat more stringent proficiency checking requirements IAW CAO) but many do not. This, to me, is one of the biggest bugbears facing GA. Training is expensive, but is the best insurance an operator can have - particularly when their often inexperienced drivers are flogging around on pitch black nights in venerable machinery maintained on a budget. CPs and CEOs set the tone / culture for this.

I, for one, would like to know whether pilots in these companies are receiving regular training (not just checking) and some form of professional development, or whether they simply get a minimalistic instrument rating renewal and three circuits with the CP once a year, because company apathy is "who cares - they'll be off somewhere else soon enough...". This, I reckon, is a major issue at hand here and the sooner all charter operators are mandated to have at least a CAR 217 the better. Pass the costs off to the clients.

No disrepect to the pilot involved, but what tools, development and recency was he provided with to go out that night and maximise his chances of dealing with whatever went wrong?

[Xcel]

^^ great post flying bear

glad I hit refresh as I was just typing out my own essay along the same lines (but much more poorly written)

many operators start off small and seem to think that as their organisations grow the same number of training staff and infrastructure will suffice. In my previous life I fought hand over fist for more help in training not just myself for checks. Unfortunately some operators will only add costs if legislation requires even in light of increases in safety, confidence and efficiences.

We can only hope flying bear.

To those who do "take the extra effort" hats off keep it up. For the others perhaps a little cost could help this from happening, and ultimately the largest cost your company could face.

Cheers
R

[megle2]

Bear / Excel - correct but

As long as there are no mandated C217 requirements for all companies operating below 5,700 kgs nothing will change.

The market place generally will not support the operators going the extra mile at an extra cost.

Sad but true.

[givemewings]

Apologies for the drift, does anyone know if there will be a service for JS down in Perth, haven't seen anything mentioned as of yet and as I am out of town would appreciate if anyone has details please PM.

Thanks from a former colleague.

[aviation_enthus]

I think you'll find the aircraft and pilot come from BA.

CA & BA do switch aircraft sometimes but only a certain regos due to insurance. CA have the charter booking and hire BA pilot & aircraft to provide extra aircraft. On the few occasions BA don't have an aircraft (U/S or busy) the CA aircraft are crosshired from the owner (not CA) and allowed to be used by both operators.

[Clare Prop]

From Jamie's facebook page:

Jamie's family would like to notify everybody of his funeral service.
The service will be held for him on Friday 18th February at 1pm meeting at the main entrance of Pinnaroo Valley Memorial Park - Whitfords Ave Padbury WA. Afterwards we will be heading to the Greenwood hotel to celebrate his life, address 349 Warwick Road Greenwood.

[andianjul]

For all those who are interested, the preliminary report has been released; as reported online: abc.net.au/news (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/30/3177652.htm?section=justin)
or here:
Plane crash probe rules out engine failure - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/30/3177652.htm?section=justin)

[Two_dogs]

Or here ...

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2476877/ao2011017_prelim.pdf

[bentleg]

The final ATSB report is here (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3613621/ao2011017.pdf)


The location of the wreckage, together with the dark night conditions and the relatively light load of the aircraft suggested that it was likely that the pilot was influenced by the effects of somatogravic illusion following takeoff.