Light plane crash near Mt Gambier

[Desert Flower]

Plane crash at Suttontown, near Mount Gambier
The Advertiser
an hour ago
A PLANE has crashed in the state’s south-east.

Emergency services are on their way to Suttontown, near Mount Gambier, in response to reports that a small aircraft had crashed about 10.30am.

The plane came down in a field near the intersection of Sunnybrae and Walker roads.

Emergency services have rushed to the site, just south of the airport.

A Country Fire Service spokeswoman said the plane had been “extensively damaged”.

Walker Road has been closed to traffic between Hinton Road and Sunnybrae Road.

Pager messages say possible entrapments/still smoldering.

DF.

[Flying Binghi]

Three dead after light plane crashes in paddock near Mount Gambier - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-28/light-plane-crash-in-sa-south-east/8659086)

[Ozhawk]

Just read that also, been bad year for GA

[Desert Flower]

Three dead after light plane crashes in paddock near Mount Gambier - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-28/light-plane-crash-in-sa-south-east/8659086)

Ohhhh bugger! :{ Wonder if weather was a factor? Photo I saw looks like either fog or light misty rain, much like it is in my location at the moment. :(

DF.

P.S. Just read the news report re the weather. :(

[havoste]

YTM
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/VHYTM

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Ohhhh bugger! :{ Wonder if weather was a factor? Photo I saw looks like either fog or light misty rain, much like it is in my location at the moment. :(

DF.

P.S. Just read the news report re the weather. :(

Deleting post - this maybe a rumour site but lets wait until it's official....

[havoste]

Socata TB-10 VH-YTM
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/VHYTM

[Desert Flower]

Deleting post - this maybe a rumour site but lets wait until it's official....

UTR - seems like another post was deleted too.

DF.

[fujii]

UTR - seems like another post was deleted too.

DF.


Maybe so but looking at the earlier TAF and METAR it's about right.

[fujii]

SPECI at the time. Vis 3400, OVC 200.

[AussieAviator]

The afternoon news just said that they had just taken off, Extremely poor weather at the time. Check the 1030 Metar.
https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/YMTG/weather
The ADSB record shows a very short flight. This is so sad and possibly preventable too.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/VHYTM/history/20170628/0030Z/YMTG/YPAD/tracklog

[Ovation]

Tragic event. The images available so far suggest an impact with very little forward velocity. The recent flight profile (from FlightAware) looks similar to Angelflight type operations.

[Cloudee]

Looks like Rex 3763 had a missed approach this morning and then held for almost an hour.


https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/zl3763/#de36161


Channel ten news saying pilot was an angel flight volunteer.

[Desert Flower]

Tragic event. The images available so far suggest an impact with very little forward velocity. The recent flight profile (from FlightAware) looks similar to Angelflight type operations.

Were you down that way today Ovation?

DF.

[Tinstaafl]

TB10 VH-YTM was one of the 2 doz ex-BAe/Ansett Tobagos. Never liked them when I was instructing there.

[spinex]

Channel ten news saying pilot was an angel flight volunteer.

I'm seeing elsewhere that it was an Angel Flight (teen girl patient and companion); bloody hell, bad enough that the three of them get wiped out but the organisation needs this like a hole in the proverbial...:cool:

[Cloudee]

I'm seeing elsewhere that it was an Angel Flight (teen girl patient and companion); bloody hell, bad enough that the three of them get wiped out but the organisation needs this like a hole in the proverbial...:cool:


Pilot identified by media as a 78 yo Mount Barker local who kept his plane at Murray Bridge and did quite a few Angel Flights.

[Desert Flower]

I'm seeing elsewhere that it was an Angel Flight (teen girl patient and companion); bloody hell, bad enough that the three of them get wiped out but the organisation needs this like a hole in the proverbial...:cool:

Brings back memories of the RFDS King Air crash at YMTG years ago when they were going to pick up a young lad to take interstate for a transplant.

DF.

[jobsright]

Not so much as a repeat of the RFDS crash, but a mirror of the Nhill crash six years ago. Whilst undertaken with the best of intentions I am sure, to take off on a VFR plan in IMC conditions is culpable negligence at the very least. (Review the YMTG met data is you are uncertain) Greatest sympathy to the mother and daughter who should have been in safer hands.

[Lead Balloon]

As usual, a pretend first-time poster with an obvious agenda steps up to promote the agenda.

While your outrageous defamation is allowed to remain published, I'll say this: Your type makes me sick to the stomach, jobsright. :yuk:

I'm guessing you work for CASA. :yuk:

[junior.VH-LFA]

As usual, a pretend first-time poster with an obvious agenda steps up to promote the agenda.

While your outrageous defamation is allowed to remain published, I'll say this: Your type makes me sick to the stomach, jobsright. :yuk:


I'm guessing you work for CASA. :yuk:

Cmon mate, overcast at 200 VFR. It is what it is. It's probably worth calling a spade a spade.

The pax in the back probably deserved a lot better than what they got, even if it was with the best of intentions.

It's probably worth a look at the operational pressures placed on a bloke that was just trying to do the right thing and how they can be better handled in the future.

[jobsright]

As usual, a pretend first-time poster with an obvious agenda steps up to promote the agenda.

While your outrageous defamation is allowed to remain published, I'll say this: Your type makes me sick to the stomach, jobsright. :yuk:

I'm guessing you work for CASA. :yuk:

I don't work for CASA but have over 25 years as a professional pilot. On top of that is in excess of 30 years of picking up mangled remains from all types of accidents. I spoke with the pilot of the Nhill crash shortly before he left Essendon, only later learning what had happened. I don't have an agenda and my post does not contain defamatory content, just facts. Get a grip on what you are alleging and look at the broader circumstances here.

[Lead Balloon]

I see your point.

Angel Flight passenger murdered by negligent pilot.

Investigation closed. Court case closed.

It's as if pilots don't realise they're pilots who may, one day, be the subject of this lynch mob idiocy.

Did I forget to say: :yuk: And: :yuk:

[junior.VH-LFA]

I see your point.

Angel Flight passenger murdered by negligent pilot.

Investigation closed. Court case closed.

It's as if pilots don't realise they're pilots who may, one day, be the subject of this lynch mob idiocy.

Did I forget to say: :yuk: And: :yuk:


I don't think there's a lynch mob forming mate, but I don't think anyone can argue that the forecast being what it was, VFR flight was neither appropriate nor legal. Even if the bloke was a competent IFR pilot, he hadn't filed IFR. That alone is sadly going to void the insurance.

It's a pretty **** situation and I'm sure everyone would like to know more about how it came to be, so it can be prevented in the future.

There's no winners here.

[Lead Balloon]

There's no winners here.At least I know you're a real pilot, because you manifest the usual level of illiteracy and political naïveté.

There are winners here, you idiot. Did I say: :yuk:

[jobsright]

I see your point.

Angel Flight passenger murdered by negligent pilot.

Investigation closed. Court case closed.

It's as if pilots don't realise they're pilots who may, one day, be the subject of this lynch mob idiocy.

Did I forget to say: :yuk: And: :yuk:

No, a murder charge requires the proof of premeditation. That did not occur here. As I said previously, obviously there is the best of intentions with every Angel flight, however, to launch in IMC conditions, whilst not in a capable aircraft, licensed, current and legal leaves few conclusions.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Sorry, no, it's not even slightly worth it.
The operational pressure on Angel Flight pilots is precisely and absolutely zero. They don't have to go anywhere or do anything in an aeroplane unless they decide to. Angel Flight certainly DO NOT decide for them or pressure them in any way. That is NOT how they work.

I won't pretend to be informed enough to say anything otherwise. I'd like to think and certainly hope that's the culture they foster.

[Lead Balloon]

You have it wrong, Clearedtoenter.

The investigation has been completed. The cause is clear.

Junior.VH-LFA and jobsright have sorted everything.

By the way: :yuk:

[Flying Binghi]

...to launch in IMC conditions...

Standing at the end of the runway were ya..:hmm:

It's a rare day indeed when the available met describes the actual conditions at take off.





.

[Jabawocky]

If this is another Nhill accident there will be a lot of folk I know scratching their heads. When airline and other CIR rated pilots in the latest spec aircraft were told by AF they were not welcome due their lawyers safety concerns........ Yet this happens again..........

Sad day for common sense.

[Karunch]

Sorry, no, it's not even slightly worth it.
The operational pressure on Angel Flight pilots is precisely and absolutely zero. Pilots don't have to go anywhere or do anything in an aeroplane unless they decide to. Angel Flight certainly DO NOT decide for them or pressure them in any way. That is NOT how they work.

Exactly correct. They are very clear to all volunteers that pilot initiated flight cancellation is considered good airmanship. Plenty of flights get cancelled with no ramifications. This is not Flying Doctors work- nothing time critical & no critically ill passengers. Any pressure is self imposed.

[Ovation]

It's far too early to tell, but WX has to be the stand-out suspected cause of this tragic event. AF flights can be allocated 10-14 days ahead so it's too far out to assure WX will be suitable for VFR (and sometimes IFR). I've looked at forecasts the day prior to a planned AF flight and if it looked beyond the capacity of myself or my aircraft, it I've rung AF and cancelled. AF will then book them on RPT (providing the patient's origin is serviced by RPT) or reschedule the treatment where possible.

[jas24zzk]

No, a murder charge requires the proof of premeditation. That did not occur here. As I said previously, obviously there is the best of intentions with every Angel flight, however, to launch in IMC conditions, whilst not in a capable aircraft, licensed, current and legal leaves few conclusions.

I take a fair bit of umbrage at this post.,,,,,,enough to think you have commercial concerns/ambitions.

The investigation has just began....

where is the info that says........
1. The aircraft in question was not IFR rated (it is capable of being so)
2. Do you know the Pilot wasn't licenced IFR
3. Do you know he wasn't current?
4. Do you know that he wasn't legal?

Sorry, but your statement and the questions I have on it just ring that you have an axe to grind....one without a handle it would seem.

It may come out that you are correct, but on given public domain information at the minute, i'm forced into that mindset


enjoy your cyrstal ball.

Cheers
Jas

[jobsright]

I take a fair bit of umbrage at this post.,,,,,,enough to think you have commercial concerns/ambitions.

The investigation has just began....

where is the info that says........
1. The aircraft in question was not IFR rated (it is capable of being so)
2. Do you know the Pilot wasn't licenced IFR
3. Do you know he wasn't current?
4. Do you know that he wasn't legal?

Sorry, but your statement and the questions I have on it just ring that you have an axe to grind....one without a handle it would seem.

It may come out that you are correct, but on given public domain information at the minute, i'm forced into that mindset


enjoy your cyrstal ball.

Cheers
Jas

Without going into a long reply, unless you were taking off in in an IFR twin turbine with auto feather, I am fairly sure YMTG would have been no go this morning. I don't have an agenda, other than I spoke with the pilot involved in the Nhill crash at Essendon and later learnt of the accident. I have seen the wreckage of that aircraft and after this incident, just do not want to see any other vulnerable people hurt in a similar set of circumstances. People with chronic medial issues use angle flight around the country every day and without their support, outcomes for many people would be terrible. We don't all have access to a primary hospital an hours drive away. That being so, the program has to be lifted. I would want this for any one I know and I am sure you would too.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Local knowledge from YMTG - the weather sensor is located at the BOM site on the west south west side of the airfield. This side also has some hills and LOTS of plantation forests.

This topography/vegetation provides for quite different weather conditions at the airfield when compared to the AWIS even though they're only a few hundred metres apart. It's common to get visual off an instrument approach even when the AWIS says you shouldn't be able to.

That said, OVC002 is unlikely to be flyable weather allowing for variations but if there is any wind at YMTG (and the 5kts shown on the METAR may be enough) then it will fluctuate through ranges of conditions fairly quickly. YMTG to YPAD is dead flat after 10nm (apart from the Adelaide Hills but the forecast there woudl have been fine - there could have been a "if I can just get to the coast...." mindset going on. I'm curious how/when the pilot got there - it would have to have been the night before one assumes.

I'll agree with those above who've said that there is no pressure at all from AF to fly - I've cancelled flights for weather that wasn't terrible but wasn't great and never has anything ever been even remotely insinuated by the staff that this was a problem or a hassle or it would somehow count against me in future - even where appointments were then missed as a result.

Sad day for the families of all but especially the passengers. The word was out in town very quickly that the crash had happened and that AF passengers were uncontactable. Took a long time for confirmation though.

I hope AF weathers the storm, learns any lessons needed and keeps on going.

UTR

[Cloudee]

I'm curious how/when the pilot got there - it would have to have been the night before one assumes.

UTR


He got there a short time before he loaded the pax and took off again. Interesting track on FR24.


https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-ytm/#de33286

[Flying Binghi]

He got there a short time before he loaded the pax and took off again...

Interesting. The pilot flew in not long before he then took off again. So much for the place being socked in.





.

[Jabawocky]

Interesting. The pilot flew in not long before he then took off again. So much for the place being socked in.





.


What? You have not seen idiots arrive in conditions that were nothing short of pharquing stupid before???

Sadly, I have. :ugh:

The inbound makes the outbound all the more likely. :ugh:

[Ovation]

My curiosity got the better of me about whether flights of YTM operated IFR or VFR, so I looked at FlightAware track log of YTM for the cruising altitude of some recent flights.

It's a little tricky without knowing for the QNH for the particular day, but i see a lot of flights were VFR to/from YPLC between 4500' and 7500'. The track log for Wed June 21 (YMBD-YPLC) show some unusual groundspeed (not airspeed) fluctuations on climb from 4000' to 6500' (113 - 54 Kts) that may be caused by a downdraft from westerly winds over the Adelaide Hills, but the subsequent cruising groundspeed suggests a fairly light headwind. Nothing else looked out of the ordinary, although I'd fly as high as possible over water (just in case) to have maximum glide range.

[Desert Flower]

Interesting. The pilot flew in not long before he then took off again. So much for the place being socked in.





.

Given the way I've seen the weather change so abruptly at my location it's quite possible for someone to land when it was right on the minima then 15 minutes or less later for it to be totally socked in. In fact the weather at my location today was a prime example of it!

DF.

[Flying Binghi]

via Jabawocky #39:
What? You have not seen idiots arrive in conditions that were nothing short of pharquing stupid before???

Sadly, I have.

The inbound makes the outbound all the more likely.

Hmmm... why so upset with the unfortunate turn of events for those quick to judge, i.e. He had just landed... looks like Jabawocky has yet again given his 'expert' opinion to the media..:hmm:

Instead of calling the pilot an "idiot" i think we need to see an accident report compiled by trained investigators before we pass judgement on a decent chap that were conducting an Angel Flight.





.

[Centaurus]

Brings back memories of the RFDS King Air crash at YMTG years ago when they were going to pick up a young lad to take interstate for a transplant.


The pilot of that flight was very experienced. Dark night final approach in mist. Pilot reported visual but aircraft crashed on final at 3nm. Witness saw the aircraft landing lights on final. ATSB unable to determine cause of that accident. After the ATSB report was published it was revealed that the T-VASIS was previously known to give erroneous indications in similar weather conditions.

[Old Akro]

Desert Flower has made one of the few rational posts here. And if you look at the BOM observations at MtGambier today you can pretty much see it. It looks like Fog either formed, or maybe reformed after clearing at about 10:30, then cleared again by 11.

And as for jobsright, or is it jobsworth the AF I that you refer to as Nhil which actually crashed 30km North of Horsham has very little in common with this accident. Drawing a parallel between the 2 is either malicious or plain ignorant.

This is a sad accident. I do not know the pilot and I.m not sure that any of the posters so far do. I don't know if he had a commercial licence or private licence nor if he was VFR or IFR and jumping to conclusions based on predjudice does no one any favours - least of all the image of those posting.

I take on face value the media reports that he was an experienced pilot who flew to MtGambier regularly. He had flown from Adelaide that morning, so should have been familiar with the enroute weather.

[Jabawocky]

Hmmm... why so upset with the unfortunate turn of events for those quick to judge, i.e. He had just landed... looks like Jabawocky has yet again given his 'expert' opinion to the media..:hmm:

Instead of calling the pilot an "idiot" i think we need to see an accident report compiled by trained investigators before we pass judgement on a decent chap that were conducting an Angel Flight.





.

Bing Bong,

You MUST be a journalist.

Only a journalist could take something that was said, and then tell the world that something else was said. I think you are the idiot to be frank. Maybe not a cloud ducking, fog bombing idiot, but an idiot all the same.

Go back and read my post in response to yours.

You make the assumption that just because he arrived there and flew off it was clearly fine. How do you make such an assessment? Or are you one of the ATSB experts who can judge things far better than some of us. (By the way, how sure are you I never did one of the ATSB's multi day training courses courses? :hmm: )

Next, look at the inbound track, hardly looks like a circuit and land let alone an IA of some sort.

Instead of being some self righteous pompous political correctness police, start reading exactly what people say before slagging off at them. :ok:

[Desert Flower]

The pilot of that flight was very experienced. Dark night final approach in mist. Pilot reported visual but aircraft crashed on final at 3nm. Witness saw the aircraft landing lights on final. ATSB unable to determine cause of that accident. After the ATSB report was published it was revealed that the T-VASIS was previously known to give erroneous indications in similar weather conditions.

My reference to that flight was not in comparison to the reason for the crash, but the fact that they were both medical flights out of the same location.

DF.

[Lead Balloon]

But it goes to show that very experienced commercial pilots in very sophisticated aircraft operated under an AOC are still involved in fatal accidents.

Fortunately the pilot was not coincidentally CVD, otherwise the CVD-industry equivalent of jobsright would use the accident as "evidence" for them to be banned.

[Possum1]

I noted yesterday morning that a new set of 4 weathercams from Airservices were live at Mt Gambier and about 5 more locations for the first time. These would have given a very accurate idea of what the conditions were like to the accident pilot had he known that they existed.

Does anyone know when exactly they went live or whether this was announced locally beforehand by the airport operators as it was at YBAF?

It would be helpful if Airservices or the BOM were more forthcoming about when these new services are going live for the first time rather than just leaving them to be noticed incidentally when flight planning or whenever someone has some idle time to surf the net.

[Dexta]

Without going into a long reply, unless you were taking off in in an IFR twin turbine with auto feather, I am fairly sure YMTG would have been no go this morning.

Single engine IFR - Instrument Departure: 300' ceiling 2Km vis (AIP ENR 1.5 4.4, 4.4.2) - wether this is below your personal minimums or not is up to you.

I do not know if the pilot had an IR or PIFR (it did come up in conversation once but I cannot remember now what was said) , but I do know the difficulties in getting and maintaining either an IR or PIFR here in SA. Very few people can do the initial training (especially PIFR) and with the new regs it is easier and cheaper to do an IR renewal than a PIFR renewal (you have to do all the AFP's in the aircraft etc.). A lot of people I have spoken too do not want or need a full IR (old CIR) but do want the added safety of a PIFR, and a few have gone to QLD to do it.
When will CAsA realise they are reducing safety by;
- Making it hard for testing officers and flight training
- Increased costs via useless ADS-B (under 10000' private only)
- Increased costs by unrealistic recency requirements
- removing Instrument Approaches from non registered or certified airfields.

CAsA should be doing all it can to encourage private pilots who do a fair bit of cross country flying to do a PIFR, maybe, just maybe in this case it could have saved three lives.

[Pappa Smurf]

So a fault with the aircraft has been ruled out I gather ?

[Flying Binghi]

Bing Bong,

You MUST be a journalist.

Only a journalist could take something that was said, and then tell the world that something else was said. I think you are the idiot to be frank. Maybe not a cloud ducking, fog bombing idiot, but an idiot all the same.

Go back and read my post in response to yours.

You make the assumption that just because he arrived there and flew off it was clearly fine. How do you make such an assessment? Or are you one of the ATSB experts who can judge things far better than some of us. (By the way, how sure are you I never did one of the ATSB's multi day training courses courses? :hmm: )

Next, look at the inbound track, hardly looks like a circuit and land let alone an IA of some sort.

Instead of being some self righteous pompous political correctness police, start reading exactly what people say before slagging off at them. :ok:

"...did one of the ATSB's multi day training courses..."
Did yer get a passing grade?..:hmm:

...Well there ya go. Suggest we wait for the accident report before passing judgement on an Angel Flight pilot and yer get called an "idiot"..:hmm:






.

[Xeptu]

Ideal carburetor icing conditions though, with all that low power approach and taxying

[AussieAviator]

I noted yesterday morning that a new set of 4 weathercams from Airservices were live at Mt Gambier and about 5 more locations for the first time. These would have given a very accurate idea of what the conditions were like to the accident pilot had he known that they existed.

Does anyone know when exactly they went live or whether this was announced locally beforehand by the airport operators as it was at YBAF?

It would be helpful if Airservices or the BOM were more forthcoming about when these new services are going live for the first time rather than just leaving them to be noticed incidentally when flight planning or whenever someone has some idle time to surf the net.

Wow, this is a really good service and did not even know about it! Most light aircraft would be able access these airborne, and could be a lifesaver for a VFR pilot contemplating a flight in marginal weather, ie, stay on ground, or divert.

Live Weather Cameras | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/WeatherCam/)

[YPJT]

As someone who has been an Angel Flight vollie pilot for more than 10 years I find this news so depressing that I might just pack it in. :(

I have had cause to cancel at least one flight where the wx was crap at the destination as reported by the contact on the ground there. There are no pressures brought to bear either by AF or the passengers themselves so to anyone else who does these flights, if the forecast is not something you would fly in for an afternoon weekend jolly please do not go.

[RickNRoll]

No one mentioning age? I'm no spring chicken either and I wouldn't like to be flown by a pilot of that age in marginal weather. If he is happy to fly it himself, good luck. If he is providing a service to others then he should think twice about it.

No pressure for the AF to go ahead but I'm wondering if he had his own internal pressure to push on.

[RickNRoll]

My reference to that flight was not in comparison to the reason for the crash, but the fact that they were both medical flights out of the same location.

DF.

That doesn't make much sense. Should we ban medical flights from that location?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

No need to 'pack it in' JT,

In a recent newspaper article I was asked to do for 'AF', (Comment News) I made it very clear that, in all of flights I have done I / we always have a 'Plan B', and a few times I have postponed / cancelled flights because of poor weather over the Darling Range, (ex JT) or fog at the wheatbelt destination.

As you have stated, the clients understand that, and there really are no pressures from that side.
I have experienced a few 'disappointments' - usually from the client's travelling companion - not from the clients themselves, as they are aware.

As sad as this event is, I feel that, maybe, a 'self imposed pressure' may have been present, seeing that other aircraft reportedly 'held' and the weather was reportedly 'not good'.

Keep up the 'good work'....

Cheers:ok:

[RickNRoll]

No need to 'pack it in' JT,



As sad as this event is, I feel that, maybe, a 'self imposed pressure' may have been present, seeing that other aircraft reportedly 'held' and the weather was reportedly 'not good'.

Keep up the 'good work'....

Cheers:ok:

My guess too.

I would also consider the age. Commercial pilots have an effective age limit but I assume because this was not a commercial flight then an age limit would not apply. If he want's to fly at 78 in marginal weather, that's his problem. It shouldn't be someone else's problem.

[Old Akro]

Single engine IFR - Instrument Departure: 300' ceiling 2Km vis (AIP ENR 1.5 4.4, 4.4.2) - wether this is below your personal minimums or not is up to you.

If you look at the SPECI, he probably had this. If the pilot was IFR

BUT UTR's caution about the location of the automatic WX station location and DF's comment that there can be significant local weather variations should be noted.

The weather started to improve significantly only about 30 min later. Sometimes there is great value in a cup of coffee.

[Old Akro]

Commercial pilots have an effective age limit

NO.

CASA get more difficult about the medicals and most people as they get older develop less tolerance for being screwed around by CASA. But, thats a different thing.

[Desert Flower]

That doesn't make much sense. Should we ban medical flights from that location?

No, that's not what I meant at all.

DF.

[Desert Flower]

The weather started to improve significantly only about 30 min later. Sometimes there is great value in a cup of coffee.

Indeed there is! Not just because of weather conditions either. For two pilots I know who were about to go on a training flight in the area it made the difference between them just getting into their aircraft when a no comms VFR flight landed, instead of perhaps having a close encounter with it had they been about to get airborne.

DF.

[RickNRoll]

NO.

CASA get more difficult about the medicals and most people as they get older develop less tolerance for being screwed around by CASA. But, thats a different thing.

I mean effective age limit. How many commercial passenger pilots are 78 or over?

[Ovation]

There's a record on FlightAware for VH-YTM departing from YMTG, but nothing for the inbound flight, however it's there data on FlightRadar24 with data derived from ADSB, which suggests (but does not confirm) the flight was VFR. If you look at the track log's heading/speed/altitude readout for the last ten minutes and note the significant fluctuations especially in the heading changes, it suggests the pilot may have been cutting things very fine in conditions totally unsuitable for VFR flight, and possibly beyond the pilots capabilites.

[RickNRoll]

I mean effective age limit. How many commercial passenger pilots are 78 or over?
Correction. Pilot was 73.

[ZAZ]

Ohhhh bugger! :{ Wonder if weather was a factor? Photo I saw looks like either fog or light misty rain, much like it is in my location at the moment. :(



P.S. Just read the news report re the weather. :(



Another AF down.
Factors?
Here in S/West has been lousy for days.
Saw the task come on email decided not to bid for it based on previous cold fronts.
Didn't check MTG WX was it speci?
200 feet for some time and saw the odd approach to land on internet using runway 29?



The age of the pilot should not be an issue, I am 70 yo and have cancelled angel flights due to change in WX or winds or night requirements and I found AF in Brisbane accommodating, never judgemental and bumped the patient up to an RPT.
Airlines in VIC at least have standing order if Carer buys seat patient flies for free.
At least it used to be.
No doubt we will hear about it all in due course, once the accident investigators are finished and I do hope AF survives their 2nd fatal crash.
I saw the effect at Nhill township it had on locals who I knew and it was a sad month for the town.
Now its Mt Gambier.
But the people who fly with us are in our hands as pilots they trust us to do the right thing and no one goes out to crash.
Its what we AF pilots don't need and no doubt CASA will threaten to re regulate like they did last time..

[Jabawocky]

If you look at the SPECI, he probably had this. If the pilot was IFR

BUT UTR's caution about the location of the automatic WX station location and DF's comment that there can be significant local weather variations should be noted.

The weather started to improve significantly only about 30 min later. Sometimes there is great value in a cup of coffee.

Akro, I know you also mean the same for IFR ops, sometimes it is better to be tactical about your flying, and have several plans up the sleeve. Coffee or a wander around the hangar will do it. :ok:

[Desert Flower]

So since there seem to be several AF volunteers on here, I have a question. I have always been led to believe from all the ads on TV about Angelflight, that it was only for people who have long distances to travel for medical reasons & have no access to RPT flights. It would appear that this is not so, given that YMTG has RPT flights that this unfortunate girl & her mother could have gone on instead.
So, what is the criteria - or isn't there any?

DF.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hi DF,

Here's a broad description from the AF site....

"About Angel Flight Australia
Angel Flight is a charity which coordinates non-emergency flights to assist country people to access specialist medical treatment that would otherwise be unavailable to them because of vast distance and high travel costs.
All flights are free and may involve travel to medical facilities anywhere in Australia."

A toll free call on 1300 726 567 will get them in Brissie during office hours for further info.

Cheers :ok:

[Desert Flower]

Hi DF,

Here's a broad description from the AF site....

"About Angel Flight Australia
Angel Flight is a charity which coordinates non-emergency flights to assist country people to access specialist medical treatment that would otherwise be unavailable to them because of vast distance and high travel costs.
All flights are free and may involve travel to medical facilities anywhere in Australia."

A toll free call on 1300 726 567 will get them in Brissie during office hours for further info.

Cheers :ok:

Thanks. I wonder how much two tickets on the RPT flight costs?

DF.

[Cloudee]

Thanks. I wonder how much two tickets on the RPT flight costs?

DF.

$700 return for two if you can get the cheapest seats.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

So since there seem to be several AF volunteers on here, I have a question. I have always been led to believe from all the ads on TV about Angelflight, that it was only for people who have long distances to travel for medical reasons & have no access to RPT flights. It would appear that this is not so, given that YMTG has RPT flights that this unfortunate girl & her mother could have gone on instead.
So, what is the criteria - or isn't there any?

People who live outside major cities get no support to get to appointments in the big smoke. Just because there is RPT, most wouldn't be able to afford the cost especially when traveling fortnightly or similar. AF could just stick them on RPT but that really isn't the intent.

[Desert Flower]

$700 return for two if you can get the cheapest seats.

Thanks Cloudee.

DF.

[Desert Flower]

People who live outside major cities get no support to get to appointments in the big smoke. Just because there is RPT, most wouldn't be able to afford the cost especially when traveling fortnightly or similar. AF could just stick them on RPT but that really isn't the intent.

Yes - at that cost I can see why.

DF.

[outnabout]

I am not 100% sure, but I think there is a requirement to show that you are not particularly flush for cash before you qualify for an AF. I am not positive that you can just rock up and demand an AF.

It's not entirely true that those in the bush are completely without support for treatment in the big smoke. Your doctor can sign a PATS form when they review you before you travel to the nearest treatment. The Passenger Assisted Transport Scheme will contribute towards petrol if you are driving, a bus fare if that's an option, and as a last resort will fund a seat on an RPT flight unless you are really crook. Usually, anyone accompanying you pays standard rates.

On tomorrow's (Fri, 30/6/2017) RPT flights, the cheapest seat - YMTG / YPAD / YMTG - will cost 432.20 return for one person. The most expensive seats are 960.20 return per person. This is the carrier who has their heart in the country (and their hand in your pocket). Mind you, if you live really remote, like YCBP or YCDU, the most expensive seat purchased at the last minute is over $1k return. Plus credit card fees.

I understand that Angel Flight provide a fabulous alternative - a friendly guy or gal who understands true Australian values contributing the use of their private aircraft to someone who needs help to get health treatment not available locally. I get that, and I like the concept.

However, in reading aviation accident reports for over 20-odd years, one thing has become blindingly obvious to me. There appear to be only 3 ways to contribute to the statistics of GA accident fatalities:
Pilot incapacitation due to medical issues - rare.
Aircraft mechanical failure - slightly more common.
Human factors, including when the skills required exceed the skills available. And this appears to be the single common factor in the majority of GA aircraft accidents. And, in my opinion, this is the single reason why pilots are their own worst enemies. I note that CASA have now mandated that they will not accept hand-Written logs from pilots managing their own diabetes but will now only accept electronic evidence from blood sugar testing devices. Could this possibly be because pilots have been fudging their blood sugar records to continue with their affair with the passion that is aviation?

I don't agree with Jabawocky often, but I do agree with his mantra - Trust the Data.

[Jabawocky]

I don't agree with Jabawocky often, but I do agree with his mantra - Trust the Data.

What do you mean often.....we are usually in violent agreement :E


Human factors, including when the skills required exceed the skills available. And this appears to be the single common factor in the majority of GA aircraft accidents. And, in my opinion, this is the single reason why pilots are their own worst enemies. I note that CASA have now mandated that they will not accept hand-Written logs from pilots managing their own diabetes but will now only accept electronic evidence from blood sugar testing devices. Could this possibly be because pilots have been fudging their blood sugar records to continue with their affair with the passion that is aviation?

This here is GOLD........POTY material right there.


And yes the data has no opinion. :ok:

[mikewil]

AF is an amazing service but this accident highlights one of its biggest limitations.

There is no question that the guys and girls running the show along with the volunteers have everyones best interests and safety as the highest priority. Policies encouraging pilots to cancel flights when they are not comfortable with conditions or the operation are very solid.

However, the human factor in all this is the individual pilot would still feel an obligation to push the boundaries (his/her own limitations) to not disappoint the 'customer'.

What we essentially have is a commercial pressure (though self imposed) on pilots who probably only fly once a week or less, in most cases favourably VMC conditions. Many AF pilots would be instrument rated, however the weekend flyers would still not push their instrument flying skills to the limit on a regular basis and would likely only fly IFR recreationally in conditions that are marginally worse than what one could do under VFR.

Many aircraft used like the one in question would also be somewhat poorly equipped for inadvertent (or intentional) entry into IMC. You could argue that if you are instrument rated, you should be able to safely operate any IFR certified aircraft in IMC. However, I question whether this accident would have occured if the same flight was done in a G1000 (or similar) equipped aircraft.

[Centaurus]

Many AF pilots would be instrument rated, however the weekend flyers would still not push their instrument flying skills to the limit on a regular basis and would likely only fly IFR recreationally in conditions that are marginally worse than what one could do under VFR.


That is why it would be prudent for these pilots who operate AF in their own aircraft to practice their IFR skills regularly on either desk top simulators or arrange for an instrument rating instructor to come with them while they practice instrument flying under the hood.

[gerry111]

I note that CASA have now mandated that they will not accept hand-Written logs from pilots managing their own diabetes but will now only accept electronic evidence from blood sugar testing devices. Could this possibly be because pilots have been fudging their blood sugar records to continue with their affair with the passion that is aviation?

Oh dear.. :ugh:

First, they came after all those criminal Colour Vision Deficient pilots and now the criminal Diabetics shall be targeted?

[Old Akro]

Many aircraft used like the one in question would also be somewhat poorly equipped for inadvertent (or intentional) entry into IMC. You could argue that if you are instrument rated, you should be able to safely operate any IFR certified aircraft in IMC. However, I question whether this accident would have occured if the same flight was done in a G1000 (or similar) equipped aircraft.

Seriously???
How on earth can you say something like this??
Do you know the aircraft involved??

If you really think only flat panel cockpits are same for IFR then we'll ground about 90% of our airline fleet.

At this stage there has been no public information about whether the pilot and / or aircraft was instrument rated. Just a lot of conjecture by guys showing their ignorance.

[Old Akro]

That is why it would be prudent for these pilots who operate AF in their own aircraft to practice their IFR skills regularly on either desk top simulators or arrange for an instrument rating instructor to come with them while they practice instrument flying under the hood.

Don't quite agree Centaurus

That is why ALL single pilot IFR pilots should work hard to maintain currency and a SIM, whether desktop or a certified SIM is useful for this.

Casualties from Angel Flights are no less tragic than any others.

[Old Akro]

What we essentially have is a commercial pressure (though self imposed) on pilots who probably only fly once a week or less, in most cases favourably VMC conditions. Many AF pilots would be instrument rated, however the weekend flyers would still not push their instrument flying skills to the limit on a regular basis and would likely only fly IFR recreationally in conditions that are marginally worse than what one could do under VFR.


What uninformed nonsense.

In fact MikeWil's who post is some sort of imagined fantasy.

Any Angel Flight pilot who has cancelled a flight knows that there is no pressure from Angel Flight to complete the flight. I have personally cancelled an AF due to fog and contrary to MikeWils ignorant assertion, AF encourage pilots to cancel if the pilot feels the situation is marginal.

The AF pilots I know are competent, current, regular pilots and AF requires the pilot to confirm his / her currency before applying for each flight.

Furthermore, the most cursory research by posters like MikeWill will show that the pilot concerned flew very regularly. FlightAware show the history of his flights with filed flight plans. At a guess you could probably double those flights to account for flights without a submitted flight plan.

And (as a CPL) I reject the assertion that CPL's are inherently safer pilots than PPL. I'll take a 70 year old, current, experienced PPL over a spotty faced CPL mass produced by one of the major flight training organisations any day of the week.

[thorn bird]

It seems strange to me that in the USA the vast majority of private pilots hold instrument ratings, whereas in Australia they do not. I think I recall reading the ratio is something like 80% to 20%. Given the huge safety benefit having instrument skills brings I wonder why this is so?.
There is also the question of cost. Higher costs limit the amount of flying a pilot can afford in a given year. Whats the old saying? "practice makes perfect".
A bit of a trawl around the US charter operators reveals their charter rates are somewhat cheaper than the operating costs of the same the aircraft in Australia.
I wonder why they can do things so much cheaper than us?
Given their private pilots appear to fly a lot more on average than we do and appear to hold better qualifications than we do is the US more safe than Australia?
There is no doubt that angle flight provides a vital service to the community that would be otherwise unaffordable. The alternative of committing to the roads is patently less safe. It would be a tragedy if an incident like this resulted in the usual knee jerk reaction of increased regulation making the service unviable.

[Lead Balloon]

It would be a tragedy if an incident like this resulted in the usual knee jerk reaction of increased regulation making the service unviable.Hear! Bloody Hear!

It is just so frustrating to see members of the 'industry' who rail against CASA's regulatory micro-management calling for an increase in regulation by CASA. The 'industry' wants CASA to regulate all drones and to have greater powers to do so. Senators are doing impersonations of people with their hair on fire about it. Members of the 'industry' want CASA to increase the regulatory requirements for 'community service flights'.

Jesus wept. The bureaucracy loves this stuff.

For the people who want to trust the data: Great. What are the data?

How many community service flight and hours have been flown. What is the fatality per mission/hour flown ratio? Who decided that that ratio is unacceptable?

What is the opportunity cost of the reduction of available community service flights if increased regulation ruled out substantial numbers of volunteers?

Are you trying to guarantee fatality-free community service flights? If yes, there will be none. RPT aircraft have fatal accidents too.

Why don't we reduce the national speed limit to 10KPH? If it saved just one life, surely it would be worth it.

:yuk:

[Kranz]

I cant believe Dick Lang on Chanel 7 last night crapping on about how AF needs better processes for vetting pilots blah blah blah.

If AF had to invest in training and checking and ensuring pilots meet minimum criteria higher than that already required, they wouldn't be able fund the service that they operate.

It is a volunteer organisation - that doesn't mean compromise on safety but it can't all of a sudden demand 1000 hour minimums with sim checks by an AF FI every year - who will pay for that? And will it actually ensure a higher level of pilot competency?

[andrewr]

What is the fatality per mission/hour flown ratio?

They claim around 20000 missions flown, so it would seem to be roughly 1 passenger fatality per 5000 missions.

Who decided that that ratio is unacceptable?

Good question. I love the idea of Angelflight, but that seems high to me.

[outnabout]

AndrewR,

You say one passenger fatality in 5000 missions is high. And yet we accept (in 2016) approximately 1235 people killed in fatalities on Australian roads.

No calls for mandatory recurrent testing for drivers licences (say, every five years you have to re-sit your drivers test).
No calls for mandatory specialised training for those who want to tow a caravan (including how to reverse a caravan).
No calls for mandatory training for driving on gravel roads, driving in stormy conditions, driving at night.

Why are these training requirements mandatory in the aviation world, and yet not mandatory on the roads, which affects more people?

Because driving a car is seen as a right, and flying a plane is seen as a privilege. Yet both are just means of transport.

[mikewil]

What uninformed nonsense.

In fact MikeWil's who post is some sort of imagined fantasy.

Any Angel Flight pilot who has cancelled a flight knows that there is no pressure from Angel Flight to complete the flight. I have personally cancelled an AF due to fog and contrary to MikeWils ignorant assertion, AF encourage pilots to cancel if the pilot feels the situation is marginal.



Choosing not to read my entire post or just selective reading?


Either way, if you go back and READ AGAIN, you will notice that I did acknowledge that there is no pressure from Angel Flight to complete the flight.


I stated that any pressure is a personal one, not a company imposed one.


You probably need to go back and have another look at your human factors theory if you don't acknowledge that many pilots will experience an increased desire to get the job done when they have passengers on board, whether they be friends/family/clients etc.

[kingRB]

At this stage there has been no public information about whether the pilot and / or aircraft was instrument rated. Just a lot of conjecture by guys showing their ignorance.Wasn't instrument rated

Pilot ?wasn?t licensed to fly in fog? (http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/the-advertiser-learns-pilot-of-tragic-angel-flight-didnt-have-accreditation-for-foggy-conditions/news-story/6dce5054a17828b8817e959d0f7e6cb5)

[Lookleft]

And (as a CPL) I reject the assertion that CPL's are inherently safer pilots than PPL. I'll take a 70 year old, current, experienced PPL over a spotty faced CPL mass produced by one of the major flight training organisations any day of the week.

But its not the "spotty faced" massed produced CPL's that are in the media having just crashed an aircraft in what looks at first glance to be another VFR into IFR accident. In fact the "spotty faced" CPLs are in the media but it is often because they have done a good job in getting themselves and their passengers safely on the ground after mechanical difficulty. It would seem that age and experience are not providing the sound decision making skills that would be expected. If Angel Flight don't want CASA to be making regulations then they probably need to be more active in assessing the pilots decision making skills. AF will probably need to have someone within the organisation having more oversight of individual operations when a flight is tasked and that would include being more involved in the flight planning. Its called operational control.

[Xeptu]

Now is probably a good time to point out that it's understandable when VFR Flight and Low Cloud or Fog come together a Spatial Disorentation event would be high on the list of usual suspects. It's not however a given in this specific event. A loss of power or engine power degrade in these conditions will still produce the same outcome. I note the wreckage suggests wings level and right way up at impact, coincidence, maybe, maybe not.

[Lead Balloon]

And there was me thinking that the Renmark, Essendon and Lockhart River tragedies involved CPLs.Because driving a car is seen as a right, and flying a plane is seen as a privilege. Yet both are just means of transport.I don't think that's the reason.

Think it's actually a mixture of things.

First, it would be political suicide for any government that introduced mandatory periodic private driver re-testing or specialist training.

Secondly, the human mind plays tricks that have people believing that dying in an aircraft accident is horribly terrible but dying in a car accident is not. That's why even those in the 'industry' will call for ever-more regulation in response to aviation accidents (although it's almost always for more regulation of 'someone else').

Here's an idea: Let's call for a ban on the carriage of passengers in private operations.

Hopefully the lynch mob will be able to find some regulatory action taken by CASA against the pilot in the past, to "prove" what an irresponsible person he was.

:yuk:

[Jabawocky]

How true! And why they would well just to just shut the f... up!


There are of course others who are less ignorant attempting to maliciously misinform the press or perhaps have they some other personal axe to grind.


Take this one:


Would these 'CIR rated pilots' happen to fly a latest spec uncertified experimental home built aircraft? To attempt to imply that 'airline and other CIR rated pilots' (which many AF pilots are) are not welcome is just downright misleading.


This is tragic enough to the families and all involved and out hearts should go out to them without all of this BS.


CTR,

Yes that is exactly what happened as a knee jerk reaction to the previous accident. Maybe you do not get the irony of it all. But for the avoidance of doubt, my previous statement was and still is 100% accurate and not misleading at all.

As for feeding the media......maybe we all should quite prune now. The media misquote all the time, so anything they pick up here is more or less likely to be fact and then misrepresented.

I am sorry you are so upset by the facts.

[aroa]

Personal decision making can be good or bad with any pilot of any age. imho
CAsA has a belief system that is PPL-Bad, CPL -Good. Its invalid.

I'd rather fly with a 4000 hr ppl than a 200 hr cpl without a wealth of experience and vital decision making. But I'd pay attention with both.
And I've had a few low time CPLs try and kill me, too

In court, as a PPL.. a CAsA w*nker (and an ambush witness) gave a lengthy dissertation about dangerous PPLs and how they cause all the accidents.

CAsA has to make a "safety" case out of it even if that wasnt the issue.

No mention was made of course, that over the period of harassment by CAsA, there were SEVEN light charter accidents in NQ alone with 21 fatalities.

Says it all really.

[Xeptu]

I have to agree that qualifications don't really count for much in any field really, I remember back years ago I needed a small surgical procedure done, I asked a theatre nurse who would you pick, she gave me 2 names, I said any others and she said well if you're just having your toe nails clipped or perhaps a couple of stitches.

Best advice I ever got and I have applied it in everything that involves spending money.

When I look back at my flying career, I was lucky to have made it to 3,000 hours, since then I have trained many high performance turbine pilots with 3,000 hours and when I'm done, I ask them the question. So now you know what you now know, how do you think you went to get this far, and they agree, I was lucky.

Everything you do in an aeroplane is for a reason, if the reason is not there or is not sound, then you're doing it wrong

[outnabout]

Looking at the data, regrettably, these tragic deaths bring the total of fatalities in GA in SA to 18 individuals in the past five years. I have to say, this figure surprised me (although it pales when compared to the road figures).

Of those, Renmark and the Lake Eyre helicopter in 2011 were commercial standard ops. All others appear to be private.

[neville_nobody]

You say one passenger fatality in 5000 missions is high. And yet we accept (in 2016) approximately 1235 people killed in fatalities on Australian roads.

Problem is that the motor car would be 1235 fatalities in circa Billion+ 'missions' so a minuscule fatality ratio in comparison.

One of the things dragging all forms of GA down is the lack of technology upgrade of aircraft and lack of training facilities. If you look at the USA you can get a sim for basically any type of aircraft which really enhances the training available, and vastly improves your IFR skill set.

[Nyassalad]

I had been near YTM and its pilot on numerous occasions in the last couple of years, however it was just one week before the accident flight that I spoke to him for the first time. He was just about to depart for YPLC, and gave me some advice on communicating with ATC when flying a direct route. He appeared, despite the early hour, to be a very competent, calm, informed and unhurried pilot. He was friendly, helpful, articulate, well dressed and his aircraft was immaculate. He had the appearance and demeanour of a professional. He was not some 50-hour-a-year woozy-headed almost 80-year-old pilot in any respect. I would have trusted my family with this man.

[sheppey]

From latest ATSB report for a similar accident.

"The ATSB cautions that, on entering an area of reduced visual cues, the risk of experiencing spatial disorientation and a loss of control is high, measuring from between 60 to 178 seconds from the time of entering the area of low visibility. This risk is highest for those without proficiency or recent experience in instrument flying."

[jas24zzk]

nothing new to aviation in that statement sheppey.

What is perhaps missing tho, is the related reaction of the pilot upon recognition of loss of spatial awareness.....

Been there, done that, and in no hurry to repeat.

[flywatcher]

There are good, decent, intelligent, current pilots of mature age who fly immaculate aircraft and are prepared to donate their time and their aircraft to help others. They go about their business competently and legally in private category flights. They are not 250 hour commercial pilots who on this forum at least, appear to know everything and are doing their best to demonise this gentleman and the organisation he was helping. I did not know him, I had never met him, I have never flown an Angel flight and I will not speculate on what occurred. But it would be nice if some of the aviation gods here with their infinite newly won wisdom would just stop and think for a while that this was a man who in his 73 years on this earth has obviously contributed a large amount to his community. I can only hope some of the experts here can do the same in the next 50 years of their life.

[bosnich71]

There are good, decent, intelligent, current pilots of mature age who fly immaculate aircraft and are prepared to donate their time and their aircraft to help others. They go about their business competently and legally in private category flights. They are not 250 hour commercial pilots who on this forum at least, appear to know everything and are doing their best to demonise this gentleman and the organisation he was helping. I did not know him, I had never met him, I have never flown an Angel flight and I will not speculate on what occurred. But it would be nice if some of the aviation gods here with their infinite newly won wisdom would just stop and think for a while that this was a man who in his 73 years on this earth has obviously contributed a large amount to his community. I can only hope some of the experts here can do the same in the next 50 years of their life.


Amen to the above.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Amen, also Flywatcher.......

Cheers :ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

There is always a diversity of opinions, and people are perfectly entitled to to hold them!

For what its worth, I have always held the view that the concept of Angel Flight, while quite honorable and noble, is fundamentally flawed!

Dr :8

[Pinky the pilot]

flywatcher; Hear hear.:ok:

There is always a diversity of opinions, and people are perfectly entitled to to hold them!


Agreed.

For what its worth, I have always held the view that the concept of Angel Flight, while quite honorable and noble, is fundamentally flawed!

Dr

Ok Forky, I`m of an open mind re that comment, so what would you do re AF to rectify your perceived flaws? A genuine question btw.

[Desert Flower]

There is always a diversity of opinions, and people are perfectly entitled to to hold them!

For what its worth, I have always held the view that the concept of Angel Flight, while quite honorable and noble, is fundamentally flawed!

Dr :8

Funny you should say that, as I have just been corresponding with someone who said exactly the same thing.

DF.

[Section28- BE]

With great/extreme trepidation-

Love, Prayers and God's Speed to the Young Soul involved and her mother!

Good evening Dr Fork- 'is fundamentally flawed!'Well Said- you, Sir.

Remove the 'honourable intent' aspect, put that to one side- ('if'- you all can) and is the Operation Insurable.........

I do not pretend to be understanding of the Operational standard, but- Private/VFR on this mission, on this day.......??????- as described, herein.

Dr, would you Launch on that day, (as described) in a naturally aspirated machine......???

Go steady all- as the issue/investigation progresses.
Rgds all
S28- BE

[Eyrie]

Don't know the original source of this but reproduced from the recreationalflying website:

"Mt Gambier Holden dealer Peter Roberts, who knew Mr Gilbert for 45 years, said he was “always having a crack” and his enthusiasm and passion would be sadly missed.
He said the former car dealer was “out there, passionate about the things in his life and always outspoken” during their lengthy relationship.

“He was certainly an icon in the car industry,” he said.
Mr Roberts said he had been worried when Mr Gilbert turned to flying in his 70s, but his long-time friend had shrugged it off.

“He said he was never too old. But without beating around the bush, I thought if he was ever going to go this is the way he’d go,” he said."
-------------------

I have a personal list of people, who when they die in an aircraft, I'm not going to be surprised about.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Ok Forky, I`m of an open mind re that comment, so what would you do re AF to rectify your perceived flaws? A genuine question btw. Pinky, its just a personal opinion - based on my 44 years of GA experience. I don't feel a need to justify it, nor will I debate it. :ok:

Dr, would you Launch on that day, (as described) in a naturally aspirated machine......???

Section 28, I won't comment on the specifics of this accident as I don't have all the facts, but "a naturally aspirated machine" would NOT be an issue for me.

[Pinky the pilot]

have a personal list of people, who when they die in an aircraft, I'm not going to be surprised about.

Likewise. And if and when they do, I shall grieve.:sad:

For the waste of a good Aircraft!

Forky; Fair `nuff.

[Duck Pilot]

Why are pilots continuing to make absolutely stupid decisions when it comes to VFR into IMC.

Forget the experience and mission orders, VFR into IMC will kill! No second chances.

I've played this Russian Rollete game in PNG and survived on more than one occasion, f**k knows how but my arse is still pointing to the ground. I've had quite a few good mates killed doing this and it totally saddens me that we pilots are our own worst enemies. Now that I'm older and wiser I look back and sometimes ask myself why I'm still alive given some of the scares that I had.

Cheers,
Plugga

[Xeptu]

Nothing wrong with what your saying about spacial disorientation, however, we don't know if this is the case yet. personally I'm prepared to pay the benefit of the doubt at this point. Given he only just landed, unless there is a witness that can say I could hear it takeoff but I couldn't see it because of the fog, then we have to accept that he didn't, in which case carby icing would be my next choice in those conditions.

If he didn't notice the power degrade on takeoff, it would get worse he could have just simply descended into the fog in the south west corner, the outcome would be exactly the same. The evidence would melt away and we would never know.

Just thought I would offer an alternate sequence of events at this point

[mustafagander]

With the usual caveats, somatographic illusion, ie acceleration fooling your brain to believe attitude is increasing, seems quite possible to me. You generally crash within a few Km of the DER with this one. Take an a/c with good performance, add a bit of fog and then ..... who knows?

[Duck Pilot]

Probably jumping the gun a bit here, however why do VFR pilots knowingly go out and fly in potentially know non VMC conditions? I know why, because we aren't strong enough to call it quites when we know we may be pushing the limits. Commercial pressures or mission orders can influence pilots to take unexceptional risks that they wouldn't normally do in an ideal situation.

The current training/re-currency training requirements are obviously totally in adequate in relation to this matter.

[Lead Balloon]

Yep: Obviously totally inadequate. :ugh:

[BEACH KING]

Probably jumping the gun a bit here, however why do VFR pilots knowingly go out and fly in potentially know non VMC conditions?
IMO the mindset and discipline is exactly the same as knowingly driving over the speed limit in a motorcar on a public road. Everyone knows that you should not do it.
The risk of getting booked by Police/speed camera or having an accident is comparable to a VMC to IMC accident.
Some people do it all the time and never get caught, but some others do and suffer the consequences (big difference in the consequences however).
An instrument rating is like driving on a race track...a controlled environment where there are rules (but people will still cheat) and a demonstrable recurrent standard to maintain. You can go as hard and fast as you like..but fcku up and suffer the consequences (big difference in the consequences however).
In regard to this accident, the cause is unknown. It is a sad and tragic event and I feel for the families and friends of everyone involved.

[Xeptu]

The reason we do it is because its a natural human factor. Its not so easy to change a plan once you're doing it, there's a level of annoyance if your'e compelled to.

For example your driving your car and come to a detour and complled to drive around side streets only to emerge 100 metres down the road, we do it because we are compelled to but there's a level of annoyance. That level of annoyance is dependant on how much inconvenience is involved.

Take the classic example, you are more than half way through painting the loungeroom wall when the other half comes in and says, oh no that isn't right, it needs to be darker. Your reaction isn't no problem luv, I'll just add some darker tint and start again. is it.

The reaction to a plan change once executed is dependant on the level of inconvenience and whether or not you are compelled to.

[Eddie Dean]

Mr Roberts said he had been worried when Mr Gilbert turned to flying in his 70s, but his long-time friend had shrugged it off.

“He said he was never too old. But without beating around the bush, I thought if he was ever going to go this is the way he’d go,” he said."This is of concern, if true. Previously stated that he was 73 years old when the accident occurred.

[Captain Dart]

...and his passengers 'went' with him.

[outnabout]

It appears that CASA are being forced to legislate against stupidity.

And by our choices, as evidenced by our actions, we appear to need it.

I note that the report has been released for the accident from Moorabbin to King Island about 18 months ago. VMC into IMC, four funerals, and it appears no-one said "Hey this weather looks a bit sh!t. I reckon we give it a miss." Or over the pre-flight coffee "I am not happy with this, count me out." No, I wasn't present in the aircraft or in the hangar so have no knowledge if this was said or discussed, but the flight went ahead, and there were no reports of last minute changes to the passenger list.

It is my understanding from the news reports at the time that all on board were pilots (as always, willing to be corrected on the facts).

[Lead Balloon]

Here's an idea: Let's get CASA to legislate so that the prescribed penalty for flying VFR into IMC is death.

Would that change anything? No.

Guess what, outnabout: There's already plenty of laws prohibiting and imposing liability for flying into IMC while operating VFR!

The knee jerk "more regulation" solution only works in the heads of people who think that the most efficient way to change behaviour is to make another law. So typically Australian...

The hundreds of millions that have been wasted on the regulatory reform program would have paid for IFR ratings and renewals for every Australian pilot, plus education, education, education and more education on human factors in aviation.

And if these people had died on the road on the way to or from the aerodrome, there would have been nary a peep on PPRuNe.

[outnabout]

So, LeadBalloon, the regs says don't do it (fly from VMC into IMC without training). Common sense says don't do it. Usually, the accident report says Nice try, but fail. Game Over.

I agree with you - more regulation is not the answer (hence my comment that CASA appear to be trying to legislate against stupidity). But at the moment, there is a increasing perception that flying in light aircraft leads to death. That's not helpful for those trying to run a business and / or make a living.

So what do you suggest?

[Lead Balloon]

What you said was:It appears that CASA are being forced to legislate against stupidity.

And by our choices, as evidenced by our actions, we appear to need it.My suggestion?

First, find out things called facts.

Secondly, determine, on a basis of those facts, whether there is actually a problem.

Thirdly, determine how most effectively to solve that problem.

Fourthly, decide whether the cost of that solution is worth paying.

Fifthly, if the cost is worth paying, implement the solution.

We already know, as a matter of fact, that pilots flying VFR occasionally fly - whether intentionally or unintentionally - in IFR, often with catastrophic results. There is general agreement that this is a problem.

The chronic failure to address the problem is a consequence of the fact that CASA is not qualified to do #3 or #4. A regulator's solution to most problems is to ... increase regulation. (To a hammer, every problem is a nail...).

#3 and #4 have to be taken out of CASA's hands.

It might be that the costs of effectively solving the problem outweigh the costs of the problem itself. But you have to do that analysis first.

The cost of road trauma in Australia in 2016 is 27 billion dollars (according to figures published by DIRD/BTRE). Although everyone agrees that is a "problem", the costs of effectively solving the problem are considered too high to pay. The speed limit isn't going to be set to 10KPH, private drivers are not going to be subject to recurrent testing or mandatory training for special activities, and collision-preventing technology isn't going to be mandated for private vehicles. That's because the economic and political costs would be too high. That's called 'affordable [politically pragmatic] safety'.

That's not how it works in aviation, because aviation is 'special'.

[LeadSled]

Lead Balloon,
Re. your two last posts, well said, a pity your sentiments were not more commonly held beliefs, in the "rules" obsessed aviation community.

Now for my two bob's worth --- no pilot sets out to knowingly kill himself and any passengers --- and only the pilot in command knows what the actual conditions were, that prevailed at takeoff, and they can vary quickly.

This pilot believed they were withing (his) limits, otherwise he would not have gone, but, sadly, he did.

Sadly, CASA "priorities" are "enforcement" after the event, if there are survivors they can "prosecute". The FAA, and other similar authorities came to realise, years ago, that "education" before the event is the most effective at minimizing aircraft accidents, but CASA activities have always been, and more so than ever at present, are weighted towards "compliance and enforcement", with the entirely predictable results.

Angel Flight is a wonderful initiative, and there is no problem with Angel Flight, that the "answer" is more regulation or other CASA interference, but I fear for the future of the organisation, once CASA decides it has got to go.

Tootle pip!!

PS: My guess, but a guess based on long experience, is that the visual horizon, once airborne, was obscured, not as good as it seemed on the ground, and he got "the leans", you do not need to be solid IMC for that to happen.

[flywatcher]

“He said he was never too old. But without beating around the bush, I thought if he was ever going to go this is the way he’d go,” he said."
-------------------

I would have thought that this could be considered libelous, no matter what he thought, did his friend?? have the knowledge to responsibly make that statement?

[DeRated]

“He said he was never too old. But without beating around the bush, I thought if he was ever going to go this is the way he’d go,” he said."
-------------------

I would have thought that this could be considered libelous, no matter what he thought, did his friend?? have the knowledge to responsibly make that statement?

It's an opinion - like most of the comments on this forum!

[scavenger]

I would have thought that this could be considered libelous

While your outrageous defamation is allowed to remain published

There's no cause of action possible for defamatory publications about a dead person. So while it may be socially reprehensible to speak ill of the dead, it is not a tortious act.

A septuagenarian private pilot flying a ~25 year old piston single engine aeroplane in bad weather with a sick kid and a carer on behalf of an organisation that brokers the flights while exercising little operational control and no pressure to get the job done in airspace managed by the world's second best ATS system regulated by an incompetent NAA.

I can't see any cause for concern there.

The cost of road trauma in Australia in 2016 is 27 billion dollars (according to figures published by DIRD/BTRE). Although everyone agrees that is a "problem", the costs of effectively solving the problem are considered too high to pay. The speed limit isn't going to be set to 10KPH, private drivers are not going to be subject to recurrent testing or mandatory training for special activities, and collision-preventing technology isn't going to be mandated for private vehicles. That's because the economic and political costs would be too high. That's called 'affordable [politically pragmatic] safety'.

That's not how it works in aviation, because aviation is 'special'.

This is one of the dumbest comments I've seen on here. Road trauma costs a lot of money and the cost of solving the problem is too high. Let's treat aviation the same - maybe we could get the cost of aviation accidents somewhere up near $27B.

Let's delegate #3 and #4 on the list to the same fools who produced the outstanding road safety results :yuk:

Piss poor road safety is not a reason to weaken aviation, it is a reason to improve road safety.

[Lead Balloon]

There's no cause of action possible for defamatory publications about a dead person. So while it may be socially reprehensible to speak ill of the dead, it is not a tortious act.

A septuagenarian private pilot flying a ~25 year old piston single engine aeroplane in bad weather with a sick kid and a carer on behalf of an organisation that brokers the flights while exercising little operational control and no pressure to get the job done in airspace managed by the world's second best ATS system regulated by an incompetent NAA.

I can't see any cause for concern there.



This is one of the dumbest comments I've seen on here. Road trauma costs a lot of money and the cost of solving the problem is too high. Let's treat aviation the same - maybe we could get the cost of aviation accidents somewhere up near $27B.

Let's delegate #3 and #4 on the list to the same fools who produced the outstanding road safety results :yuk:

Piss poor road safety is not a reason to weaken aviation, it is a reason to improve road safety.And there we have the regulation of aviation in Australia, writ large: We're going to make aviation accident free, at whatever cost.

Do you entertain the possibility that the ratio of the costs of "air trauma" compared with the benefits of aviation was already orders of magnitude lower than that of road trauma compared with the the benefits of the road transport system, and that further strangulation of aviation activity is having a net negative effect?

I do. But I'm dumb.

Tell me: How does CASA assess the costs of, say, banning 'community service flights' in private operations, and against what criteria does CASA decide whether that cost is worth paying?

[Flying Binghi]

...My suggestion? First, find out things called facts...

Good idea... Whilst the pprune muppets might see fit to call the accident pilot an idiot we are yet to see an official accident report.

A very brief google of TB10 issues show seat failures and blinding smoke in cockpit incidents. Apparently the tail plane has had problems. And then there are the typical aging aircraft issues of airframe corrosion and wiring problems. Any of these 'issues' can fatally affect an aircraft on take off. Even a pax seat failure on take-off can have the pax grabbing for those 'handles' conveniently in front of them.

As an aside, I've had an absent minded pax use the flight controls as an aid to pull the seat forward. Luckily before flight so i were able to 'educate' the pax, again, about what not to touch.





.

[andrewr]

we accept (in 2016) approximately 1235 people killed in fatalities on Australian roads.

The Vic road toll is very roughly 1 per day (and yes, that is considered too high and a lot of time and money is spent trying to reduce it). Road journey statistics are roughly 10 million trips per day and 100 million km/day. So that's 1 fatality per 10 million trips or 100 million km.

Per trip, Angel Flight is about 2000 times worse. If you guess an average Angel Flight of 500km, it works out to 40 times more dangerous per km than by road.

These are bad figures. I am sure they will be scrutinised by the Coroner, as well as CASA.

If you want to protect Angel Flight and prevent extra CASA regulation, 2 things need to happen:
1) Acknowledge that there is a problem and
2) Take some pro-active steps to address the problem.

#2 could be as simple as setting some weather minimums for the trip.
e.g. for day VFR:
- No cloud forecast below 2000 AGL on the planned route
- No requirement for an alternate or holding in the destination forecast
- No more than scattered areas of visibility < 10km in the forecast.
- Arrival at least 1 hour before last light

The forecast could be checked at head office for each flight, and the flight cancelled if the forecast limits are exceeded, without giving the pilot the option.

This is nothing new. We know what is required to make aviation operations safer. We know that pilots tend to push the limits and will sometimes pay the price if that is allowed. We know that setting boundaries well away from risky areas hugely improves safety.

I doubt that there are many commercial operations that work on the same basis as Angel Flight, i.e. no concrete guidance to the pilot other than obey regulations and use your own judgement.

Commercial operations are supervised by a CP, and have operations manuals etc. that set additional limits on top of the regulations for a reason. Angel Flight needs to learn from this, and take back a bit of the responsibility from the pilots.

[Lead Balloon]

Road trauma is not just fatalities. It includes injuries and property damage.

Are you sure that all Angel Flight pilots are 'just' private pilots? Really sure? Do the ATPLs and CPLs become irresponsible when free of the shackles of a CPs scrutiny?

If there is a problem, it is not caused by Angel Flight. It's caused by human factors issues that have been around forever.

If the rules for day VFR Angel Flights should be changed, the rules for all day VFR private operations should be changed.

But hang on a second, if the current rules were complied with, there wouldn't be a problem, would there?

The problem isn't the rules. We're drowning in rules. If only all of that regulatory reform program money had been spent on instrument ratings and education instead...

My prediction: There will be no change to the regulatory requirements imposed on community services flights. Aside from all of the difficulties of defining what they are and are not - thus turning a dog's breakfast classification of operations regime into a bigger dog's breakfast - there is formidable political support for AF.

[Flying Binghi]

The Vic road toll is very roughly 1 per day (and yes, that is considered too high and a lot of time and money is spent trying to reduce it). Road journey statistics are roughly 10 million trips per day and 100 million km/day. So that's 1 fatality per 10 million trips or 100 million km.

Per trip, Angel Flight is about 2000 times worse. If you guess an average Angel Flight of 500km, it works out to 40 times more dangerous per km than by road.

These are bad figures. I am sure they will be scrutinised by the Coroner, as well as CASA.

If you want to protect Angel Flight and prevent extra CASA regulation, 2 things need to happen:
1) Acknowledge that there is a problem and
2) Take some pro-active steps to address the problem.

#2 could be as simple as setting some weather minimums for the trip.
e.g. for day VFR:
- No cloud forecast below 2000 AGL on the planned route
- No requirement for an alternate or holding in the destination forecast
- No more than scattered areas of visibility < 10km in the forecast.
- Arrival at least 1 hour before last light

The forecast could be checked at head office for each flight, and the flight cancelled if the forecast limits are exceeded, without giving the pilot the option.

This is nothing new. We know what is required to make aviation operations safer. We know that pilots tend to push the limits and will sometimes pay the price if that is allowed. We know that setting boundaries well away from risky areas hugely improves safety.

I doubt that there are many commercial operations that work on the same basis as Angel Flight, i.e. no concrete guidance to the pilot other than obey regulations and use your own judgement.

Commercial operations are supervised by a CP, and have operations manuals etc. that set additional limits on top of the regulations for a reason. Angel Flight needs to learn from this, and take back a bit of the responsibility from the pilots.

"...I doubt that there are many commercial operations that work on the same basis as Angel Flight, i.e. no concrete guidance to the pilot other than obey regulations and use your own judgement..."

That's because AF is not a commercial operation. More a travel 'clearing house' for people who want a free flight from private volunteers for health issues. ...and obeying flying regulations and using ones own judgement - What better advice then that.

And we still don't have an official accident report for this prang yet so how can we make any sort of judgement ?...:hmm:





.

[Desert Flower]

Good idea... Whilst the pprune muppetsApparently the tail plane has had problems.

I've heard they have wing problems too - especially if you spin them.

DF.

[gerry111]

It is my understanding from the news reports at the time that all on board were pilots (as always, willing to be corrected on the facts).

My understanding is that three out of the four were pilots. If it's the case that they were VFR entering IMC en-route to YKII, I'll always wonder why two of them didn't say: "Let's get the f**k out of here."

[AussieAviator]

Surely there must be witnesses on the ground at or around YMTG around the departure time of this flight. Not a witness of the departure, but a general description of the actual weather at the time. The METAR indicates 200' cloudbase and 3km viz, and maybe the Rex crew noticed something, or even the refueller? Air Services had live cameras filming the four quadrants at the time, I wonder whether these still pictures are recorded? I wonder what the AWIS (133.425) information was at the time, and is this data recorded?
Live Weather Cameras | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/WeatherCam/)

[Dexta]

After a relatively quick (2 hours) search of the regulations, all I could find to determine VFR conditions and if it is legal to take off for Day VFR is as follows;
1. Forecast - If you can obtain a forecast then cloud must be at least 1000' AGL above the highest obstacle 10nm either side of track
If no forecast then pilot is satisfied that the weather at the departure point will permit the safe return within 60min.
2. Alternate - The forecast cloud must be Scattered or less, 1500' AGL and 8km vis (not applicable if less than 50nm)
3. Takeoff/Enroute/Landing - Class G: below 10,000' - 1000' vertical, 1500m horizontal, 5km visibility. AT or below 3000' AMSL/1000'AGL; clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water, 5km visibility - MUST HAVE a radio and used on appropriate frequency.
4. Reg 157 may fly below 500' due stress of weather.

For IFR the take-off minima is black and white, but for VFR it can be down to interpretation; for example, lets say there are no TAF's for my departure, destination or any airfields along my track. The ARFOR that I have obtained shows cloud above 1500' and visibility of 8km. However at my departure the cloud is low and I estimate that it is 800' and I guess visibility to be 5km and I'm satisfied I can make a safe return. I do not need an alternate due to forecast. I jump in the plane and take off. At 600' I start entering cloud, I drop to 500' and can see the ground and if need be due to press of weather I can fly less than 500' if I need to so I head off to my destination. Have I broken any Visual Flight Rules?

Please provide references to any rules that have been broken.

[mikewil]

2. Alternate - The forecast cloud must be Scattered or less, 1500' AGL and 8km vis



I've always found this one quite ambiguous on its own as it assumes the destination aerodrome will have TAF.


What it implies is that if the destination doesn't have a TAF, then an alternate WILL ALWAYS be required (and will need a TAF) as you won't be able to verify that conditions are forecast be above the specified minima without one.


An ARFOR is too vague and open to interpretation to be used for satisfying alternate requirements.

[Lead Balloon]

After a relatively quick (2 hours) search of the regulations, all I could find to determine VFR conditions and if it is legal to take off for Day VFR is as follows;
1. Forecast - If you can obtain a forecast then cloud must be at least 1000' AGL above the highest obstacle 10nm either side of track
If no forecast then pilot is satisfied that the weather at the departure point will permit the safe return within 60min.
2. Alternate - The forecast cloud must be Scattered or less, 1500' AGL and 8km vis (not applicable if less than 50nm)
3. Takeoff/Enroute/Landing - Class G: below 10,000' - 1000' vertical, 1500m horizontal, 5km visibility. AT or below 3000' AMSL/1000'AGL; clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water, 5km visibility - MUST HAVE a radio and used on appropriate frequency.
4. Reg 157 may fly below 500' due stress of weather.

For IFR the take-off minima is black and white, but for VFR it can be down to interpretation; for example, lets say there are no TAF's for my departure, destination or any airfields along my track. The ARFOR that I have obtained shows cloud above 1500' and visibility of 8km. However at my departure the cloud is low and I estimate that it is 800' and I guess visibility to be 5km and I'm satisfied I can make a safe return. I do not need an alternate due to forecast. I jump in the plane and take off. At 600' I start entering cloud, I drop to 500' and can see the ground and if need be due to press of weather I can fly less than 500' if I need to so I head off to my destination. Have I broken any Visual Flight Rules?

Please provide references to any rules that have been broken.Dexta:

How do you "start entering cloud" as well as "remain clear of cloud"? You're IMC, not VMC, as soon as you "start entering cloud". Breach of 172.

The exception in 157 to which you referred says in whole: "through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height [than otherwise required by 157] be maintained".

The weather-induced stress has to be "unavoidable" and it must be "essential" that the lower height be maintained, before the exception applies. That is not a blanket authority to take off and fly from A to B at 490' AGL just because the cloud base happens to be 500' AGL along the track from A to B.

Unless ISIS has overtaken A or the only source of your urgently-needed life-saving medicine is at B, you can avoid the weather-induced stress by doing a 490' circuit and returning to land at A. It's not essential for you to continue to B. If there's a suitable landing area in between A and B, you can avoid further weather-induced stress by landing there. It's not essential for you to continue to B.

I can sorta understand the decision to take off in the mistaken belief that the cloud base is much higher (although VFR pilots should acquaint themselves with the various simple methods of accurately estimating the height of low cloud bases), but as soon as you know the cloud base is going to force you below 500' AGL I reckon a decision to continue to your destination below 500' AGL would be dangerously irresponsible and in breach of 157, except in the sorts of remotely possible situations I've given. Even in those situations, technical compliance with the regs won't stop you colliding with that stonking great tower on the hill directly on track.

[Dexta]

I 100% agree Lead Balloon, I think the problem lies with some pilots that they do not have a clear-cut go/no-go plan in their heads, they look out and think, "yeah, I can make that". On the roads you have a sign with big black numbers with a bright red circle telling you "this is the speed limit", a driver can of course go slower than the limit, do the limit or choose to exceed the limit, no power on earth can control the choice a driver will make. A VFR pilot also has to make a choice, but either through lack of training (VFR minimums drummed into them), lack of experience (gee I almost died then! I'll never do that again) or lack of responsibility (I'll do what the heck I want) they still fly into situations where they end up in IMC. Certainly more regulations are not the answer, clearer regulations maybe?
I guess some action will be taken by the authorities because as we know all Australians need a regulation before they can choose to obey, ignore or work around it.

[Eddie Dean]

.................................................
I guess some action will be taken by the authorities because as we know all Australians need a regulation before they can choose to obey, ignore or work around it.Whether it be ear tags, clear felling, aviation regs, road regs or whatever - some just will not comply - they know far better than everyone else.

[Flying Binghi]

I 100% agree Lead Balloon, I think the problem lies with some pilots that they do not have a clear-cut go/no-go plan in their heads, they look out and think, "yeah, I can make that". On the roads you have a sign with big black numbers with a bright red circle telling you "this is the speed limit", a driver can of course go slower than the limit, do the limit or choose to exceed the limit, no power on earth can control the choice a driver will make. A VFR pilot also has to make a choice, but either through lack of training (VFR minimums drummed into them), lack of experience (gee I almost died then! I'll never do that again) or lack of responsibility (I'll do what the heck I want) they still fly into situations where they end up in IMC. Certainly more regulations are not the answer, clearer regulations maybe?
I guess some action will be taken by the authorities because as we know all Australians need a regulation before they can choose to obey, ignore or work around it.

Hmmm... Dexta i'm wondering what the "authorities" will be 'actioning' about? Working with your road scenario - I see you racing down a fog bound road barely able to see past the bonnet and you with the firm belief the road is straight in front of you. It may very well be so, though the road may have a few turns as well. Jumping in and suggesting that the authorities will need to regulate, before we even have a final accident report to 'clear the fog from the road', suggests a "lack of training" to me.






.

[outnabout]

I agree that we are jumping to conclusions to say that flight from VMC into IMC was a factor in this tragedy.

However, it doesn't change the fact that untrained flight from VMC into IMC has been a contributing factor into past fatalities.

I agree with one (or both) of the Leads (Leadsled? Lead Balloon?) that we don't need more regulation. I personally am willing to accept these deaths as the consequence of being involved in aviation, the same way I accept the deaths (including those of close friends and family) in car accidents as not deterring me from driving. However, unfortunately, in my opinion, the travelling public fuelled by a hysterical media don't appear to share that view. A fatal car accident doesn't deter their wish to drive (or indeed improve their driving habits) but a fatal aircraft accident appears to mean that anyone who subsequently sets foot in a light aircraft is doomed.

And there's the rub....

[Flying Binghi]

...a hysterical media...

Considering We pilots now have many sources other then the traditional media, i.e. Pprune, Farcebook, Twitter, etc. I'm surprised how many still just give in and accept that the traditional media 'view' of things will be the publicly accepted opinion. We should use all forms of media to correct the sheer incompetence and corruption of the traditional Oz media. There's still enuf journalists of integrity to be found in Oz media that if the public start to demand honest reporting we will start to get it.

For an example - If it hasn't been noted yet just have a look how the traditional American media has handled the way President Trump has been using all forms of media. Thus sidelining the constructed storyline that used to come from the traditional media 'swamp' - look at the hysteria that has created..:)
One of the new age media groups, Breitbart, has been covering the sheer corruption of the CNN reporting of Trump. Multiple employee sacking so far and more to come from what was once billed 'America's most trusted news source'
CNN Blackmails Source of Donald Trump Wrestling Video - Breitbart (http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/07/04/cnn-blackmails-source-donald-trump-wrestling-video/)






.

[Lookleft]

I hope you are not suggesting that Breitbart is an independent and reliable new source? Given one of Trumps closest advisors used Breitbart as a mouthpiece for the Trump campaign its credibility is zero.

[kingRB]

You don't need to query Breitbart's validity to know the truth behind that story. It's beyond viral at the moment. Maybe try "looking right" as well sometimes :ok:

[Lookleft]

I certainly don't "voteleft" but the far right is as bad as the loony left.

[josephfeatherweight]

I don't wish to draw the conversation away from the original discussion of the topic regarding the tragic crash near YMTG, but (without making assumptions about this particular incident), as a few have said, the wonderful people at Angel Flight need to have a introspective look at their operations and organisation. The concept and initiative of Angel Flight is brilliant and should be supported wholeheartedly - the woefully inadequate minimum experience requirements for the pilots needs to be addressed. These pilots are picking up "passengers" - not family members or friends...
Again, I'm not drawing conclusions in this case, as I know near FA about this incident, but these are my strong feelings regarding the Angel Flight operation.

[Flying Binghi]

I don't wish to draw the conversation away from the original discussion of the topic regarding the tragic crash near YMTG, but (without making assumptions about this particular incident), as a few have said, the wonderful people at Angel Flight need to have a introspective look at their operations and organisation. The concept and initiative of Angel Flight is brilliant and should be supported wholeheartedly - the woefully inadequate minimum experience requirements for the pilots needs to be addressed. These pilots are picking up "passengers" - not family members or friends...
Again, I'm not drawing conclusions in this case, as I know near FA about this incident, but these are my strong feelings regarding the Angel Flight operation.

"...not family members or friends..."

Yeah, ah suppose they come under the heading of life's 'baggage'.....:hmm:

...with CASA though, far as i'm aware they only differentiate between fare paying pax and non-fare paying pax. With them AF pilots, Family, friends, and those in need who wants a lift somewhere all come under the heading of non-fare paying pax.





.

[josephfeatherweight]

I guess I was trying to draw a distinction between friends/family members who have a bit of knowledge of their friend/relative pilot and may have a bit more knowledge of their experience/currency/general professionalism in order to assist them with deciding if they are going to go flying with Uncle Dave on the weekend.

- VS -

Mum/Dad with sick kid who needs to fly for treatment, with kindly Pilot Dave whom they don't know from a bar of soap but would expect to be suitably experienced for the task.

I do NOT cast aspersions on the brilliant and generous Angel Flight pilots who do a fantastic job for a wonderful organisation. I'm talking about the fact that a higher quality of pilot is required to undertake this operation than the minimums currently demand - as would be expected by their (undoubtedly grateful) "passengers".

[megan]

the woefully inadequate minimum experience requirements for the pilotsWhat level of experience might you suggest? Compared to what is required for a CPL I would have thought their 250 hours in command to be more than reasonable. You seem to be suggesting that a raw bone CPL shouldn't be permitted to carry paying passengers due to lack of experience.

PPL holders don't have the ability to build mega hours, and what is experience? 10,000 hours doing circuits? CASA bestows the right to carry passengers to a newly minted PPL. Are the PPL requirements too low?

m6R0XuJ-wZk

The very last thing needed is more "rules", just obey the ones we have. ie stay VMC if that's your category, as Lead Balloon says (my bolding),If there is a problem, it is not caused by Angel Flight. It's caused by human factors issues that have been around forever.

If the rules for day VFR Angel Flights should be changed, the rules for all day VFR private operations should be changed.

But hang on a second, if the current rules were complied with, there wouldn't be a problem, would there?

The problem isn't the rules. We're drowning in rules.

[Lead Balloon]

[T]he woefully inadequate minimum experience requirements for the pilots needs to be addressed.What is your opinion as to what the minimum experience requirements for community service flights should be, and against what criteria are you measuring adequacy?

It seems you are saying that there are pilots who have a licence that authorises them to carry passengers in private operations, but only their families and friends who - apparently - are competent to, and do, make an assessment of the pilots' professionalism. My long experience is that family and friends simply assume - reasonably - that the pilot knows what he or she is doing, if for no other reason than that most family and friends wouldn't have a clue how to judge otherwise.

[josephfeatherweight]

Sorry for my delayed response...
What level of experience might you suggest? Compared to what is required for a CPL I would have thought their 250 hours in command to be more than reasonable. You seem to be suggesting that a raw bone CPL shouldn't be permitted to carry paying passengers due to lack of experience.
Yes, but as far as I can ascertain, Angel Flight pilots do not require a CPL? A raw bone CPL has done a CPL course - yes, obviously they can carry paying passengers.
The very last thing needed is more "rules", just obey the ones we have. ie stay VMC if that's your category, as Lead Balloon says
Absolutely - I don't advocate any more "rules". The issue is the "stay VMC if that's your category" and then, quite poignantly:
It's caused by human factors issues that have been around forever.
Absolutely correct - I believe there are many similarities between Angel Flight ops and the ops carried out by EMS professionals. The actual pressure (and it's not just "perceived") to get the job done is immense and it is Human Factors which presents the opportunity to press the limits. I am aware that Angel Flight is not utilised for "life and death" situations, but the pressure is clearly there when Timmy needs to get to his dialysis appointment and the only other option is a 4 hour drive... Whereas the EMS industry has the framework and resources to not only teach their operators about the risk, they can (and have) internally regulated to take the decision making away from the crew regarding "do we go or not".
This very real pressure on an Angel Flight pilot cannot be compared to a PPL taking his family/friends for a jolly on the weekend.
Whilst I cannot quote the statistics relating to Angel Flight accidents, my interest/concern in this topic has only developed due to the fact they HAVE been crashing, for similar reasons, over the last 10 years or so - I would be interested if someone does have the stats. Something is amiss and needs to change drastically to stop these accidents happening.
In short, it is my personal opinion, that those conducting Angel Flights ops need a CPL and an Instrument Rating to bring the risk to an acceptable level. Is this realistic/achievable? Maybe not, but without those qualifications, these accidents will continue to occur for the reasons outlined above.

[Karunch]

The actual pressure (and it's not just "perceived") to get the job done is immense

Utter tripe. Where do you get this 'actual pressure' from, the tone of the AF email or the phone call from AF? If you are that sensitive I suggest you should stay away from aviation.

that those conducting Angel Flights ops need a CPL and an Instrument Rating to bring the risk to an acceptable level

Neither of those qualifications necessarily reduce risk. The IR may however improve dispatch rates. Plenty of rule breaking CPL holders out there. In my experience, the PPL's are more likely to cancel a flight due to a lower risk threshold.

The takeaway from this tragedy is to ensure that AF passengers are fully apprised of the risks involved in GA aircraft travel and that all involved are aware that there is always a plan B.

[Lead Balloon]

[M]y interest/concern in this topic has only developed due to the fact they HAVE been falling out of the sky, for similar reasons, over the last 10 years or so.I do despair.

"Falling out of the sky"? You should be a journalist.

There have been aircraft commanded by CPLs with IFR ratings "falling out of the sky", over the last 10 years, too. And they've killed more people than have died in the course of community service flights over the same period.

But in any event, your 'bottom line' is minimum CPL and current IFR. That's a regulatory option, and I respect your view that those minimums are an appropriate regulatory option to pursue.

Next task: Define community service flights in such a way as to clearly distinguish them from other flights. (You'll note that I use the term "community service flights" rather than "Angel Flights". That's because the organisation Angel Flight is just a 'clearing house' to connect people in need of a flight for non-urgent medical reasons with pilots who are willing to volunteer to fly them. These arrangements could still be made, even if AF shut its doors tomorrow.)

What is/are the objectively-ascertainable characteristics of community service flights that distinguish them from other passenger-carrying operations that are appropriately characterised as private? When the FOI lobs in to do a ramp check, what will the FOI look at and ask so as to distinguish between the two?

The last thing Australian aviation needs is another lump on the regulatory camel that is the classification of operations regime.

[josephfeatherweight]

"Falling out of the sky"? You should be a journalist.
Ok, fixed that. Changed it to "crashing", hopefully less journalistic for you!

The last thing Australian aviation needs is another lump on the regulatory camel that is the classification of operations regime.
Agreed. Again. I'm not talking about CASA doing ANYTHING.
In my opinion AF needs to take the lead here, recognise that there is an issue and mandate the minimums, which I have suggested should be a CPL and IR.

[Lead Balloon]

"Incidents involving fatalities" would be even better than "crashing"...

So let's assume Angel Flight takes the initiative and sets a minimum CPL and current IFR for AF pilots. How does that stop private pilot, Joe Citizen, flying a neighbour's friend's son from Unflabungardoo to YSBK for a specialist medical appointment?

[josephfeatherweight]

Umm, well, it doesn't, but that's not under the banner of "Angel Flight", is it?
I'm making mere suggestions in an effort to make a worthy service provider (Angel Flight) viable into the future.
I believe there is an experience issue that is magnified by the nature of the tasking that needs addressing.
Respectfully, I've said all I'll say on this. Cheers.

[Flying Binghi]

Umm, well, it doesn't, but that's not under the banner of "Angel Flight", is it?
I'm making mere suggestions in an effort to make a worthy service provider (Angel Flight) viable into the future.
I believe there is an experience issue that is magnified by the nature of the tasking that needs addressing.
Respectfully, I've said all I'll say on this. Cheers.

"Under the banner".... well, easy fix. Lets change the wording on the banner. Instead of the words Angel Flight lets reword the banner to - On Offer, Private Pilots Utilizing Their Own Aircraft To Fly Free of Charge Those With Medical Concerns Please ring this number to be put in contact with the pilot...





.

[IFEZ]

Are there any stats available on how many AF missions are flown and by what licence and flight rules..? I'm only guessing but wouldn't a large percentage be done PPL & VFR..? How many are done PPL & IFR..? How many CPL's with current CIR would be available to do these AF missions..? I can see where you're coming from with setting these minimums and you may well make the flights somewhat safer, but won't there be a new problem due to lack of availability of qualified pilots to accept the required missions..? (Throwing the baby out with the bathwater comes to mind).

[Old Akro]

Why is this relevant?

This is a sad accident where people are killed. Its no more or less tragic that they were under the auspice of Angel flight, or scouts, or the local school or next door neighbors of the pilot or some flying mates from his local airport.

The CPL licence is designed to teach pilots how to operate under the operation manual of a commercial organisation and fuel and navigation planning in environments where the commercial nature requires a pilot to operate with less discretion to add personal safety margins.

Speaking as a CPL, as much as we might like to think that we are demi-gods, the CPL licence does not mean that we fly any better or more safely than a PPL. And if there were something in the CPL syllabus that created safer pilots for flights like this, then CASA is culpable for not implementing in in the PPL syllabus.

I might also remind you that only a week or two earlier in nearby Renmark were there also 3 fatalities. Except that there were 2 highly qualified CPL's and a CASA examiner on board.

[Slezy9]

If you are that sensitive I suggest you should stay away from aviation.


I hope that you are not currently and never will be in any sort of supervision/mentoring role in aviation.

[Capn Bloggs]

Respectfully, I've said all I'll say on this. Cheers.
Joseph, don't worry, you fell foul of LB, a master at the art of going on and on and on.

Farmer Joe flying his mate's rellos to the big smoke for a hospital visit is, of course, a complete red herring and irrelevant to the discussion here.

[Lead Balloon]

Who mentioned: "Farmer Joe flying his mate's rellos to the big smoke for a hospital visit?"

And why would that example be "a complete red herring" and "irrelevant" in a discussion about community service flights?

Farmer Joe may be an Angel Flight pilot. Farmer Joe may have accepted an Angel Flight mission to carry someone who is, coincidentally, a friend's relative.

Your example is not so unusual.

You're merely showing your prejudice.

[ravan]

[QUOTE=Old Akro;
I might also remind you that only a week or two earlier in nearby Renmark were there also 3 fatalities. Except that there were 2 highly qualified CPL's and a CASA examiner on board.[/QUOTE]

A timely reminder... the aeroplane cares not if you have a RPL, PPL, CPL or ATPL, if you ignore the laws of physics it will quite happily kill you.

The price of safety at any level of licence is the constant exercise of personal responsibility. It's just that sometimes we get our expectations confused with our capabilities and the outcome can be fatal.

[jobsright]

What is your opinion as to what the minimum experience requirements for community service flights should be, and against what criteria are you measuring adequacy?

It seems you are saying that there are pilots who have a licence that authorises them to carry passengers in private operations, but only their families and friends who - apparently - are competent to, and do, make an assessment of the pilots' professionalism. My long experience is that family and friends simply assume - reasonably - that the pilot knows what he or she is doing, if for no other reason than that most family and friends wouldn't have a clue how to judge otherwise.

It is simple. The pilot needs to be capable,competent and current. One does not embark on a flight outside ones capabilities.

[gerry111]

A timely reminder... the aeroplane cares not if you have a RPL, PPL, CPL or ATPL, if you ignore the laws of physics it will quite happily kill you.

That's just so true.:D

[Supermouse3]

'flight safety seminars' organised by angel flight/pilot members for pilot members?

there won't be any quantifiable results, but if it makes a pilot take a second look at the weather for example, then it's worth it?

[Old Akro]

flight safety seminars' organised by angel flight/pilot members for pilot members?

Why?? Thats CASA's job, not Angel Flight. Without wishing to be too blunt, the life of an Angel Flight passenger is not worth any more or less than anyone else.

If a pilot is safe for passengers, then he/she is safe for all passengers. If a pilot is not safe, then the CASA licencing / AFR system has failed.

[megan]

Whereas the EMS industry has the framework and resources to not only teach their operators about the risk, they can (and have) internally regulated to take the decision making away from the crew regarding "do we go or not"The EMS operation of which I have some knowledge leaves all the decision making up to the pilot when it comes to the do we go or not. I doubt any other EMS operator is any different. The one thing they do do (at least this particular operator) is follow the rules.

I'd be particularly interested in how the decision making being taken out of the pilots hands works in practise, as you allege takes place. Doesn't happen in this neck of the woods.

[Supermouse3]

at least a few aeroclubs i know of offer safety seminars,

just because it's the regulators job, doesn't mean organisations like aeroclub's and AF shouldn't do their bit

I was merely offering a suggestion to counter other suggestions of increased regulation i.e. kneejerk reactions, or 'it happens'

[Flying Binghi]

...I was merely offering a suggestion to counter other suggestions of increased regulation i.e. kneejerk reactions, or 'it happens'

As we don't yet have an accident report I'm wondering what it is these new regulations will cover...?





.

[Supermouse3]

just the suggestions in previous posts like CPL, IFR etc

[junior.VH-LFA]

Reports out.

So are we going to keep defending his actions or admit reality now?

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-069/

[Flying Binghi]

Reports out.

So are we going to keep defending his actions or admit reality now?

Investigation: AO-2017-069 - Collision with terrain involving SOCATA TB-10 Tobago, VH-YTM, near Mount Gambier Airport, South Australia, on 28 June 2017 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-069/)

The report is not out yet.

The investigation is continuing and will include examination of the following:

- recovered components and available electronic data
- aircraft maintenance documentation
- weather conditions
- pilot qualifications and experience
- coordination and planning of the charity flight
- the use of private flights for the transfer of passengers for non-emergency medical reasons
- similar occurrences.

Investigation: AO-2017-069 - Collision with terrain involving SOCATA TB-10 Tobago, VH-YTM, near Mount Gambier Airport, South Australia, on 28 June 2017 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-069/)





.

[Lead Balloon]

Reports out.

So are we going to keep defending his actions or admit reality now?Ah to be young and stupid again. :(

When it's your turn to be lynched by the mob, junior, you'll learn a hard lesson.

[Desert Flower]

Reports out.

So are we going to keep defending his actions or admit reality now?

Investigation: AO-2017-069 - Collision with terrain involving SOCATA TB-10 Tobago, VH-YTM, near Mount Gambier Airport, South Australia, on 28 June 2017 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-069/)

This may only be the preliminary report, however I think it's plainly obvious what happened & why it happened. There are no surprises in it.

DF.

[Lead Balloon]

Then you should be lobbying the ATSB to discontinue further investigation, as any further investigation would be a waste of the taxpayers' money.

[Flying Binghi]

This may only be the preliminary report, however I think it's plainly obvious what happened & why it happened. There are no surprises in it.

DF.

Oh, do tell us what is "Plainly obvious" in this preliminary report. Seems to this dumb ol hill farmer me that the report is telling us much as they do at this time of any investigation. i.e, they is looking at pilot qualifications, aircraft components, aircraft maintenance, WX, etc...

"...Several components and documentation were removed from the accident site..."

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-069/





.

[Ozgrade3]

Dear oh dear. The track taken off Ozrunways tells the story. It is obvious that that he was trying to dodge very low cloud and was often boxed in by heavy rain showers. Were there any witnesses that can verify the state of the weather. Unfortunately during my instructing career I have had countless incidences where I have have had to persuade pilots to come into the office for a cuppa while to wait for the weather to clear. The youngish ones will usually accept the offer, but the older ones frequently are less than receptive and require more convincing that the weather is crap. I have used the red button on the bowser to prevent refueling in the past when one pilot was hellbent on taking off into Overcast at 100 feet. He eventually was persuaded that a hotel for the night was the best course of action.

[Desert Flower]

Then you should be lobbying the ATSB to discontinue further investigation, as any further investigation would be a waste of the taxpayers' money.

No, I want it to go ahead just to see if it proves I am right.

DF.

[Sunfish]

Agree with DF. God protect me from ever being as stupid as that pilot.

Simple logic is that if WX was so bad as to require the inbound track and machinations to land, then absent a dramatic improvement in conditions, takeoff under VFR would by definition be stupid.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Head in the sand fella's.

Negligence needs to be called out. That track in paints a picture that words can't.

I don't think AF needs to become CPL or IFR only etc, but if you aren't going to at least take a lesson from this and accept it for what it is, you're part of the problem.

[Lead Balloon]

No, I want it to go ahead just to see if it proves I am right.

DF.The word "if" is a sign of your wisdom, DF. And, sadly, my experience suggests you will be proved correct.

Apropos of nothing in particular ...

The father of a very good school friend of mine was a RAAF pilot a long time ago. He was ferrying a propellor-driven trainer (pre Plastic Parrots and Ginwheels) from A to B. His parent's farm happened to be along the way. He decided to 'pull over' there for a cup of tea and bikkies.

After the visit he strapped back in and prepared for take-off. During taxi he managed to taxi into a shallow trench that he'd failed to see, damaging the undercarriage and destroying the propellor.

Being an officer and gentlemen, he naturally concocted a story about an engine failure and forced landing. He even tore some branches from one of the trees on the boundaries of the property and jammed the greenery into the undercarriage struts and other components.

The subsequent investigation and board of inquiry never identified the fact that the location of the 'engine failure' and 'forced landing' was his parent's farm...

[le Pingouin]

Nice story, except that your friend's father wasn't trying to dodge around trenches that he knew were there when he came to grief.......

[Lead Balloon]

I'm intrigued by a few aspects of the preliminary report.

I'm not sure what is so surprising about the departure path and altitude of the aircraft. TB-10 with 3 pax and possibly full fuel reaches 500' AMSL - about 300' above aerodrome level - 45 seconds after take off in humid conditions. What altitude would be 'normal' in that aircraft in those conditions, 45 seconds after take off?

"Veered to the left" seems an overstatement compared with Figure 2. I'd be interested to know the wind conditions at the time. Maintaining runway heading by DG/compass after take off won't result in maintenance of runway track, if there is a crosswind.

I wonder why there is a reference to a strong smell of "fuel" rather than a strong smell of AVGAS. I do hope ATSB has or will discount the possibility of the aircraft having been refuelled with the wrong fuel. (Would we be bludgeoning AF into IFR-only operations, if this turned out to be a mis-fuelling tragedy?)

Apparently CCTV showed the aircraft took off from runway 24. I wonder how far away the camera was from the aircraft and runway.

[Flying Binghi]

Head in the sand fella's.

Negligence needs to be called out. That track in paints a picture that words can't.

I don't think AF needs to become CPL or IFR only etc, but if you aren't going to at least take a lesson from this and accept it for what it is, you're part of the problem.

Seems the ATSB are "part of the problem" then..:hmm:

From the just released interim report:

"...Readers are cautioned that new evidence will become available as the investigation progresses that will enhance the ATSB's understanding of the accident as outlined in this web update. As such, no analysis or findings are included in this update."

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-069/





.

[Lookleft]

That the odour was described as fuel rather than AVGAS might suggest that the investigators don't consider it relevant at this stage, remembering that this is just a preliminary report. What caught my eye was that the aircraft impacted inverted which is a strong indicator of disorientation.

It didn't take long for the media to join the dots.


Father demands aviation regulator CASA 'get off its butt' after second fatal Angel Flight crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-25/angel-flight-second-fatal-crash-prompts-demand-casa-crackdown/8723500)

[Captain Nomad]

While I do feel for the families left behind in these tragedies, as a pilot, am I the only one to find the last bit in that ABC article somewhat concerning?! :confused:

The pilot might also leave behind a wife and kids who also have a difficult future to consider...! I can only imagine how difficult and distressing it would be for the pilot's family to also have to deal with this kind of legal caveat scenario on top of their loss...

He offered this advice to the family left devastated by the latest Angel Flight crash.

"First thing to do, get in touch with a lawyer and caveat everything of the pilots, everything he owns, so it can't be sold," he said.

"If someone had said that to me I would have said, 'don't be stupid, why would I want to do that?'

"Do it. You can't not think of yourself, you have to think of you, your family, your kids and the future."

[Old Akro]

I wonder why there is a reference to a strong smell of "fuel" rather than a strong smell of AVGAS.

Maybe the ATSB doesn't know the difference?? Or more seriously, "fuel" is a generic term of which AVGAS is a subset. And the ATSB are reporting the comments of witnesses who will almost certainly be untrained to distinguish between AVGAS & MOGAS. I think you are reading more into this than it deserves.

Besides - the ATSB says he refuelled at Mt Gambier. I don't believe MtGambier has a MOGAS pump, so it's gotta be AVGAS.

[Old Akro]

The ABC story is a disgraceful, emotional beat up. The accident is really tragic and sad. But the lives of Angel Flight passengers are not worth any more or any less than any passenger that rides with a private pilot.

Despite the reports of fog when he took off - the aircraft climbed to 500 ft. I'm surprised that the pilot wasn't either through the fog and on top by then, or near enough the top to be seeing blue. There are both METARS and SPECI reports at the time recording an overcast base at 200 ft.

[Desert Flower]

Maybe the ATSB doesn't know the difference?? Or more seriously, "fuel" is a generic term of which AVGAS is a subset. And the ATSB are reporting the comments of witnesses who will almost certainly be untrained to distinguish between AVGAS & MOGAS. I think you are reading more into this than it deserves.

Besides - the ATSB says he refuelled at Mt Gambier. I don't believe MtGambier has a MOGAS pump, so it's gotta be AVGAS.

I think the inference is that it may have been refuelled with AVTUR. I don't know what the setup is at YMTG but if it's the same as YLEC then only the correct carnet card can operate the pump. Unless of course a credit card is used instead. I was shocked a few weeks ago to find out the AVGAS you get now isn't the green 100/130 that I used to have, but instead is 100LL. :(

DF.

[Lead Balloon]

The ERSA entry for Mount Gambier says AVGAS by swipecard bowser and JetA1 by tanker. I therefore consider it almost impossible that there could have been wrong fuel loaded. I hope this is confirmed one way or the other in the final report.

(DF this is why the credit card terminal at YLEC asks three times for confirmation of the required fuel type.)

[gerry111]

The ERSA entry for Mount Gambier says AVGAS by swipecard bowser and JetA1 by tanker. I therefore consider it almost impossible that there could have been wrong fuel loaded. I hope this is confirmed one way or the other in the final report.

(DF this is why the credit card terminal at YLEC asks three times for confirmation of the required fuel type.)

From my experiences at YPPF, YSBK and YCBA where AVGAS is only available from a tanker, the driver will not supply without first sighting a confirming sticker next to the fuel cap. I'd be thinking that the same applies with AVTUR.

I'm prepared to bet a carton of Coopers Pale Ale against anyone who reckons that the final report will find that the aircraft had AVTUR loaded at YMTG. :ok:

[Desert Flower]

(DF this is why the credit card terminal at YLEC asks three times for confirmation of the required fuel type.)

To be honest I wasn't taking any notice of that when I was watching someone try to reactivate the AVGAS pump after it had cut out while they were refuelling a DC3. Also didn't take any notice when the pilot in the KingAir that pulled forward to refuel after the DC3 departed started the AVTUR pump. It all felt rather confusing to me, because the pumps were the opposite way around to what they were in my day.

DF.

[Desert Flower]

From my experiences at YPPF, YSBK and YCBA where AVGAS is only available from a tanker, the driver will not supply without first sighting a confirming sticker next to the fuel cap. I'd be thinking that the same applies with AVTUR.

Air BP's rules were no sticker beside cap (either type) no fuel. Or fill in a fuel order form.
I can still clearly remember one pilot who despite the fact that I was standing behind the Avgas bowser, grabbed the Jet A1 hose & started towards his piston engine aircraft. Normally I used to have the Jet A1 pump locked, as well as the hose reel chained. This particular morning had been very busy, & while the bowser was locked the hose reel wasn't chained. I waited until he'd taken about a dozen steps then said to him "Sir, that is the JetA1 hose - not the Avgas one". I swear I have never seen anyone turn white as quick as he did!

DF.

[Lead Balloon]

Air BP's rules were no sticker beside cap (either type) no fuel. Or fill in a fuel order form.
I can still clearly remember one pilot who despite the fact that I was standing behind the Avgas bowser, grabbed the Jet A1 hose & started towards his piston engine aircraft. Normally I used to have the Jet A1 pump locked, as well as the hose reel chained. This particular morning had been very busy, & while the bowser was locked the hose reel wasn't chained. I waited until he'd taken about a dozen steps then said to him "Sir, that is the JetA1 hose - not the Avgas one". I swear I have never seen anyone turn white as quick as he did!

DF.Which is precisely why I want confirmation of what fuel was actually found at the crash site. Plenty of ERSA entries are inaccurate, and I'm just going off the Mount Gambier ERSA entry. And tanker drivers/refuellers some times have a bad day.

[Lead Balloon]

While I do feel for the families left behind in these tragedies, as a pilot, am I the only one to find the last bit in that ABC article somewhat concerning?! :confused:

The pilot might also leave behind a wife and kids who also have a difficult future to consider...! I can only imagine how difficult and distressing it would be for the pilot's family to also have to deal with this kind of legal caveat scenario on top of their loss...Mr Twigg's response is understandable but misguided. He might care to talk to the families of the Lockhart River tragedy or Karen Casey off NGA to find out how compensation for injury and death happens across the aviation spectrum.

I will be intrigued to see how CASA proposes to define and distinguish community service flights in the classification of operations scheme. It can only make a dog's breakfast a bigger dog's breakfast.

[Lead Balloon]

I agree completely. Should not take much effort or time to test the fuel found at the crash site.

[Tankengine]

Of course the fuel should be tested. However the report that impact was beyond vertical/inverted would IMO not suggest an engine or fuel problem.
Loss of control, vac pump?

[mostlytossas]

Does anyone know what if any forms passengers are required to sign off on when requesting an Angel flight? Are they required, and therefore be aware that these flights are private with not the same insurance cover or aircraft equiptment as a RPT service. Are they aware just as travelling in a private car that they themselves accept that risk before getting on board?

[Desert Flower]

Plenty of ERSA entries are inaccurate

They are indeed, as the RFDS found out recently at YLEC at 2300 hours when the PAL lighting system let them down. None of the contact numbers the RFDS base had worked. Lucky for them I was listening, & still have keys for the agent's box! ;)

DF.

[Lead Balloon]

Just goes to show the 'third world' standard of lots of aviation infrastructure in Australia (as well as the value of people such as yourself with local knowledge and nous).

For folks who operate at or to or from Mt Gambier: What refuelling infrastructure is actually installed there? What is/are the location/s of the CCTV cameras referred to in the preliminary report?

[Capn Bloggs]

Just goes to show the 'third world' standard of lots of aviation infrastructure in Australia
That would be the inaccurate ERSA entries, would it LB? I wonder who's fault that is?

[Xeptu]

The reference to "a strong smell of fuel" as it was also made in the renmark crash, usually indicates that the impact was severe enough to rupture the fuel tanks and that fuel has since drained away. It's not intended to imply anything other than just that.

[KittyKatKaper]

How could an AVGAS powered aircraft which had been refueled with AVTUR actually get off the ground ?
I mean, the AVGAS in the fuel-lines would be consumed within a minute or so of idle-power and then the AVGAS/AVTUR mix would make the engine run-up not 'normal'.

[Desert Flower]

How could an AVGAS powered aircraft which had been refueled with AVTUR actually get off the ground ?
I mean, the AVGAS in the fuel-lines would be consumed within a minute or so of idle-power and then the AVGAS/AVTUR mix would make the engine run-up not 'normal'.

There is normally enough of the proper fuel in the lines for the aircraft to become airborne, then shortly thereafter it all goes pear shaped. As was the case with a Piper Chieftain at Moomba many years ago. Not everyone does run-ups either!

DF.

[Desert Flower]

Moomba accident report:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1983/aair/aair198303433.aspx

DF.

[Cloudee]

Just goes to show the 'third world' standard of lots of aviation infrastructure in Australia (as well as the value of people such as yourself with local knowledge and nous).

For folks who operate at or to or from Mt Gambier: What refuelling infrastructure is actually installed there? What is/are the location/s of the CCTV cameras referred to in the preliminary report?

Perhaps it's these cameras referred to.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/WeatherCam/

[Lead Balloon]

That would be the inaccurate ERSA entries, would it LB? I wonder who's fault that is?Had you been working in GA back when rural and remote aerodromes were valued and supported public infrastructure, you'd know the answer to both questions, Capn.

[kingRB]

What refuelling infrastructure is actually installed there?

Carded self serve AVGAS (Flying fuels) and the Jet A1 is by truck only and the local ARO usually drives it once ordered. So it's probably not worth wasting anymore thought that Jet was uplifted instead of 100ll.

[megan]

How could an AVGAS powered aircraft which had been refuelled with AVTUR actually get off the ground ?Happened to the famed Bob Hoover in his Aero Commander. Survived the crash, and went onto develop the "Hoover Nozzle" in an attempt to prevent misfueling.

[Lead Balloon]

Carded self serve AVGAS (Flying fuels) and the Jet A1 is by truck only and the local ARO usually drives it once ordered. So it's probably not worth wasting anymore thought that Jet was uplifted instead of 100ll.Thanks kRB.

[Desert Flower]

Happened to the famed Bob Hoover in his Aero Commander. Survived the crash, and went onto develop the "Hoover Nozzle" in an attempt to prevent misfueling.

Some Jet A1 nozzles had a flange on them which was supposed to prevent them from being inserted in an Avgas tank opening. But they were a pain in the proverbial, because there were some turbine aircraft tank openings that they didn't fit in properly which necessitated changing the nozzle to the normal one.

DF.

[gerry111]

Some Jet A1 nozzles had a flange on them which was supposed to prevent them from being inserted in an Avgas tank opening. But they were a pain in the proverbial, because there were some turbine aircraft tank openings that they didn't fit in properly which necessitated changing the nozzle to the normal one.

DF.

That's possibly a case of "Too much information", DF? :ooh:

[Lead Balloon]

It's always possible, GIII. Humans have an uncanny knack of getting around even 'inafallible' safety devices.

In this case it's in my 'highly unlikely' category until confirmed by ATSB. Info about the pilot's card swiped through the AVGAS bowser will do it, if witnesses aren't available.

[Desert Flower]

That's possibly a case of "Too much information", DF? :ooh:

As in? It wasn't breaking the rules, if that's what you mean. It either had to be changed or the fuel couldn't be delivered in that particular aircraft. Once fuelling was completed the nozzle was changed back to the flanged one.

DF.

[Lead Balloon]

I think GIII may have been suggesting - he will correct me if I'm wrong - that the 'workaround' you (quite reasonably) had to implement resulted in a negation of the risk mitigation outcome which the special nozzle was intended to achieve. If you had to do it, others may have had to do it.

He has a carton of Cooper's Pale Ale on the line, and I'm guessing he's not planning on parting with it.

[megan]

But they were a pain in the proverbial, because there were some turbine aircraft tank openings that they didn't fit in properlyWhich turbine types DF, just out of interest.

[Desert Flower]

Which turbine types DF, just out of interest.

I can't remember offhand, but there were a few that had a flap under the cap which had to be pushed down to admit the nozzle. From memory the tank openings weren't as large as usual either. The flanged ones just wouldn't fit.
While we're on the topic of dedicated nozzles, it seems like there is no requirement to have them on self serve bowsers.

DF.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

I wouldn't think a mis-fuel would be possible at YMTG - Avgas is in the self serve and JetA1 in the tanker. If it had been wrong fuel in the supply system we'd probably know by now.

UTR

[Desert Flower]

I wouldn't think a mis-fuel would be possible at YMTG - Avgas is in the self serve and JetA1 in the tanker. If it had been wrong fuel in the supply system we'd probably know by now.

UTR

I don't think so either, but it was a question that was raised earlier.

DF.

[greifandpain]

Don't know the original source of this but reproduced from the recreationalflying website:

"Mt Gambier Holden dealer Peter Roberts, who knew Mr Gilbert for 45 years, said he was “always having a crack” and his enthusiasm and passion would be sadly missed.
He said the former car dealer was “out there, passionate about the things in his life and always outspoken” during their lengthy relationship.

“He was certainly an icon in the car industry,” he said.
Mr Roberts said he had been worried when Mr Gilbert turned to flying in his 70s, but his long-time friend had shrugged it off.

“He said he was never too old. But without beating around the bush, I thought if he was ever going to go this is the way he’d go,” he said."
-------------------

I have a personal list of people, who when they die in an aircraft, I'm not going to be surprised about.

If that was the way Mr. Gilbert wanted to go - why did he take my daughter & Grand daughter with him. He could have taken his own grandchildren with him - He would then be happy and we would still have our only daughter and her daughter still with us

[greifandpain]

Nothing wrong with what your saying about spacial disorientation, however, we don't know if this is the case yet. personally I'm prepared to pay the benefit of the doubt at this point. Given he only just landed, unless there is a witness that can say I could hear it takeoff but I couldn't see it because of the fog, then we have to accept that he didn't, in which case carby icing would be my next choice in those conditions.

If he didn't notice the power degrade on takeoff, it would get worse he could have just simply descended into the fog in the south west corner, the outcome would be exactly the same. The evidence would melt away and we would never know.

Just thought I would offer an alternate sequence of events at this point

The pilot came into a landing dodging the fog. OK, that,s fine, he was only risking his own life. But having had a difficult time lining up the runway in the landing, what in gods name did he risk the safety of his passengers. Did he not have a duty of care? Not to himself, he apparently was happy to take his chances by himself he had no right to put the passengers in mortal peril.

AND YES the airport WAS fogged in. Twenty minutes later it was clear. Why did the commercial flights not take off. Because it was too foggy for them.

[greifandpain]

The reason we do it is because its a natural human factor. Its not so easy to change a plan once you're doing it, there's a level of annoyance if your'e compelled to.

For example your driving your car and come to a detour and complled to drive around side streets only to emerge 100 metres down the road, we do it because we are compelled to but there's a level of annoyance. That level of annoyance is dependant on how much inconvenience is involved.

Take the classic example, you are more than half way through painting the loungeroom wall when the other half comes in and says, oh no that isn't right, it needs to be darker. Your reaction isn't no problem luv, I'll just add some darker tint and start again. is it.

The reaction to a plan change once executed is dependent on the level of inconvenience and whether or not you are compelled to.

My daughter and her daughter did not have any say in the Mount Gambier plane crash. My daughter had asked me "How can a pilot fly in cloud ?" as my daughter Tracy told me that this particular pilot had flown in IFR with them previously. I, Fifty years ago flew gliders and I explained to my daughter how it was suppose to work. I convinced her that it would be OK, I also told her if she was scared about flying conditions, then don't go. I would drive them both to Adelaide and back again, A fifteen hour drive. I had been driving them to Adelaide and back up to three times a week. That is why she organised the Angel Flight, to save her seventy years old father (me) whom after some two months was physically becoming unable to continue with the driving. I trusted them to a stranger. Now they are dead.

I have a very good idea of what went wrong - but I am prepared to wait for the report from the ATSB.

[greifandpain]

I cant believe Dick Lang on Chanel 7 last night crapping on about how AF needs better processes for vetting pilots blah blah blah.

If AF had to invest in training and checking and ensuring pilots meet minimum criteria higher than that already required, they wouldn't be able fund the service that they operate.

It is a volunteer organisation - that doesn't mean compromise on safety but it can't all of a sudden demand 1000 hour minimums with sim checks by an AF FI every year - who will pay for that? And will it actually ensure a higher level of pilot competency?

I would think AF should have an even higher "Duty of care" than the actual pilots. That will no doubt come out in the investigation.

[greifandpain]

So since there seem to be several AF volunteers on here, I have a question. I have always been led to believe from all the ads on TV about Angelflight, that it was only for people who have long distances to travel for medical reasons & have no access to RPT flights. It would appear that this is not so, given that YMTG has RPT flights that this unfortunate girl & her mother could have gone on instead.
So, what is the criteria - or isn't there any?

DF.

A reply from the father of TRACY- For Ten weeks I had been driving my daughter and grand daughter to Adelaide and back the same day, three times a week. My daughter was trying to save the life of here daughter who on that same day was going to be admitted to the eating disorder clinic. I would suggest all here go and research anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. I told our Tracy there is a 30% chance Emily was going to die of the mental illness, no matter what everybody was doing for Emily. "Dad, shes my daughter, I have to do this". Tracy was our daughter and I had to do this
too. But I at seventy plus, all that travelling and 15 hours terribly emotional trips was slowly wearing me down. My daughter organised AF so save my health. Tracy was our only daughter and I wish I had died instead of those two beautiful human beings - "The world is a sadder place with their going"

[flywatcher]

Greifandpain, I feel your distress and I am sure all persons here feel the same way. No matter what is said, we are all terribly, terribly sorry for your loss and we all grieve with you.

[Desert Flower]

A reply from the father of TRACY- For Ten weeks I had been driving my daughter and grand daughter to Adelaide and back the same day, three times a week. My daughter was trying to save the life of here daughter who on that same day was going to be admitted to the eating disorder clinic. I would suggest all here go and research anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa. I told our Tracy there is a 30% chance Emily was going to die of the mental illness, no matter what everybody was doing for Emily. "Dad, shes my daughter, I have to do this". Tracy was our daughter and I had to do this
too. But I at seventy plus, all that travelling and 15 hours terribly emotional trips was slowly wearing me down. My daughter organised AF so save my health. Tracy was our only daughter and I wish I had died instead of those two beautiful human beings - "The world is a sadder place with their going"

Greifandpain, I am so sorry for your loss. I do know what anorexia nervosa & bulimia nervosa means. However my question was because I was trying to find out how Angelflight worked. I always thought it was only for people who didn't have access to RPT flights, because that is what the TV ads portray.

DF.

[Pearly White]

Greifandpain, I am so sorry for your loss. I do know what anorexia nervosa & bulimia nervosa means. However my question was because I was trying to find out how Angelflight worked. I always thought it was only for people who didn't have access to RPT flights, because that is what the TV ads portray.

DF.

At around $450 round trip for an adult and child, it's difficult to imagine who could afford access to RPT flights three times weekly. Not sure if RFDS could have helped - clearly it's too late now for Tracey and daughter.

I'd also like to express condolences. I know the pain of loss of a loved one decades before their time. I've often thought about offering my services as a pilot to AF but in my view you should have a current CPL/MECIR to operate a reasonable level of certainty about being able to go when planned, in order to make the patient's specific appointments, and I don't. Not sure what capacity RFDS has. They certainly fly a lot of flights.

[Bend alot]

greifandpainforever - I/we feel your pain (and I for one don't mind if you vent a bit) but I would like to inform you in advance that the reports coming out these days are not very good. They try not to hurt any persons feelings alive or dead.

They don't have flight data recorders or cockpit voice recorders or I assume video footage of the exact time of the flight showing weather conditions. The wreckage also wont give much information is weather is the factor.

The long and short is ATSB will be reluctant to say what should be said as they don't have 100% proof and eyewitnesses can be called to any court cases later (as a result of the report) and be proven wrong then that makes a fool of the ATSB and they wont take that risk.

Just want you to be prepared in what may be a long time a very watered down ass covering report with little detail.

And very sorry for that - take good care of yourself mate and the ones around you.

[Flying Binghi]

...The long and short is ATSB will be reluctant to say what should be said as they don't have 100% proof...



Hmmm... reading these last few posts i am reminded that there used to be a warning posted at the bottom of all pprune threads.

Now, what should be said when yer don't have proof ?...:hmm:






.

[Desert Flower]

Not sure if RFDS could have helped

No - they wouldn't have.

DF.

[Desert Flower]

Why on earth would you ask such a question on this website DF? It's not exactly renowned for its unbiased, unemotional objective comment you know.

Try the AF website if you're really serious about finding out how they operate, unless there is some agenda in your question of course.

https://www.angelflight.org.au

Legitimate question, no agenda. No need for the snarky answer.

DF.

[greifandpain]

greifandpainforever - I/we feel your pain (and I for one don't mind if you vent a bit) but I would like to inform you in advance that the reports coming out these days are not very good. They try not to hurt any persons feelings alive or dead.

They don't have flight data recorders or cockpit voice recorders or I assume video footage of the exact time of the flight showing weather conditions. The wreckage also wont give much information is weather is the factor.

The long and short is ATSB will be reluctant to say what should be said as they don't have 100% proof and eyewitnesses can be called to any court cases later (as a result of the report) and be proven wrong then that makes a fool of the ATSB and they wont take that risk.

Just want you to be prepared in what may be a long time a very watered down ass covering report with little detail.

And very sorry for that - take good care of yourself mate and the ones around you.

Thank you for your kind words. Just so everybody knows. The AP was starting to fog in on the approach (see tracking) as pilot tries to find AP. Before the plane departs, fog set in fully. Commercial flight also at AP at the time prefers to stay on ground. AF takes off in IFR, eventually impacts terrain inverted and flips over.

Result 2 innocent people who trusted pilot to look after them are dead.

Failing that a mechanical condition of plane or medical incident of the pilot, the cause will be "Spatial disorientation". Possibly combined with some situation that drew the pilot's attention away from instruments.

A very experienced pilot has difficulty in this situation but with training and experience has a very good expectation of only wetting his trousers.

An inexperience pilot just needs to keep the plane straight, get air speed, rotate, listen to engine sound and use instruments to keep wings level until aircraft clears fog bank. All relatively easy UNLESS something goes wrong - that is where experience and training come in to be very important.

Example: conditions induce carburetor icing, engine starts to loose power, vibration. Realization forgot heater. eyes off instruments, find heater control, possibly stall alarm, enrich fuel, loses 200 RPM due to carburetor de-icing, stall warning still sounding, lower the nose to keep up air speed. What the hell is going on!!!!! Start turn to airport. If stall alarm had stopped, the turn brings it back on. Where am I?? stall alarm should not be sounding, Iv'e put the nose down!!!! Looks to instruments it's all confusing!!! inside wing finally stalls, aircraft rolls over hits the ground at a 30% angle and flips. That is what happens without training and lack of experience with IFR will do. Dose that sound plausible. I flew gliders fifty years ago.

If the problem turns out to be medical or mechanical it all could possibly have been better handled by a pilot flying VFR instead of IFR.

The same pilot took his grand children on joy rides apparantly, I bet it was never in IFR conditions though.

The really sad thing is Twenty minutes later fog lifts completely to a clear sky.

[Old Akro]

Thank you for your kind words. Just so everybody knows. The AP was starting to fog in on the approach (see tracking) as pilot tries to find AP. Before the plane departs, fog set in fully. Commercial flight also at AP at the time prefers to stay on ground. AF takes off in IFR, eventually impacts terrain inverted and flips over.

Result 2 innocent people who trusted pilot to look after them are dead.

Failing that a mechanical condition of plane or medical incident of the pilot, the cause will be "Spatial disorientation". Possibly combined with some situation that drew the pilot's attention away from instruments.

A very experienced pilot has difficulty in this situation but with training and experience has a very good expectation of only wetting his trousers.

An inexperience pilot just needs to keep the plane straight, get air speed, rotate, listen to engine sound and use instruments to keep wings level until aircraft clears fog bank. All relatively easy UNLESS something goes wrong - that is where experience and training come in to be very important.

Example: conditions induce carburetor icing, engine starts to loose power, vibration. Realization forgot heater. eyes off instruments, find heater control, possibly stall alarm, enrich fuel, loses 200 RPM due to carburetor de-icing, stall warning still sounding, lower the nose to keep up air speed. What the hell is going on!!!!! Start turn to airport. If stall alarm had stopped, the turn brings it back on. Where am I?? stall alarm should not be sounding, Iv'e put the nose down!!!! Looks to instruments it's all confusing!!! inside wing finally stalls, aircraft rolls over hits the ground at a 30% angle and flips. That is what happens without training and lack of experience with IFR will do. Dose that sound plausible. I flew gliders fifty years ago.

If the problem turns out to be medical or mechanical it all could possibly have been better handled by a pilot flying VFR instead of IFR.

The same pilot took his grand children on joy rides apparantly, I bet it was never in IFR conditions though.

The really sad thing is Twenty minutes later fog lifts completely to a clear sky.

We won’t really know until we get an ATSB report. And I sincerely hope it’s a better quality report than many of the recent ones.

But, as I understand it, the aircraft took off into a fog layer, which is different than departing IMC into cloud. The pilot had only recently landed, so he would have had an understanding of how high the fog extended. From the altitude the aircraft reached, it’s conceivable that he was through the fog layer. In which case it was not simple spatial disorientation. Even if you are not completely climbed through fog, vertically upward you can see sky and have a sense of the horizon. I would be surprised if the pilot didn’t have some sort of horizon at the high point of the flight.

With any sort of reasonable climb rate, one might have thought this aircraft would have climbed through the fog in maybe 45 seconds, by which time the aircraft is on its way in the same VMC conditions that the pilot arrived in only maybe 30 minutes earlier. I don’t know whether or not the aircraft had an autopilot, but a simple wing leveller would have made getting through a fog layer reasonably easy.

It not clear to me if there was a base under the fog. But it’s also possible the pilot was visual at 100 -200 ft AGL. In which case it would be conceivable that the pilot could get back to Mt Gambier safely - albeit illegally low.

Fog is odd stuff. It’s not homogenous and it’s not static. Maybe the pilot thought he was taking off during a temporary thinn8ng of the fog. I would expect that the ATSB will have a number of witnesses with experience ( ie pilots, met officers, etc) who will be interviewed on the conditions at the time.

In my opinion, this accident is more much more complex than a VFR pilot becoming disoriented in IMC.

This was a tragic accident that saddens me greatly. But, until the ATSB bring down their findings, I like to give the pilot credit for being more experienced than the vast majority of charter flight pilots and that he was ( if for no other reason than self preservation) making his best effort to conduct a a safe flight.

[Night Bandit]

"This was a tragic accident that saddens me greatly. But, until the ATSB bring down their findings, I like to give the pilot credit for being more experienced than the vast majority of charter flight pilots and that he was ( if for no other reason than self preservation) making his best effort to conduct a a safe flight."

The pilot wasn't experienced nor did he have an Instrument Rating and previously had a fright, which should have been a lesson, but not so.

[Old Akro]

The pilot wasn't experienced nor did he have an Instrument Rating and previously had a fright, which should have been a lesson, but not so.

A charter pilot can be - and often is a 250hr pilot with no instrument rating. I don't know the pilot, but based on the news reports he had significantly more experience that that. But we'll know in complete detail when the ATSB releases its report.

I have read nothing about a previous fright, so know nothing of it. And I'd suggest that unless you know this first hand from the deceased pilot, then you don't actually know either.

The flight was not required to be IFR. He had successfully from from Adelaide VFR. Whether or not the take-off was in VFR conditions is a key question that will be addressed by the ATSB. But I reckon that only people who were physically at Mt Gambier at the time know the answer.

But, I think the flight path raises questions about whether fog was the root cause. But until the ATSB report, this is all idle gossip.

I can understand the grief of the husband and father of the passengers. But I don't think its any more or any less than the grief of pilots family. The pilot didn't set out to harm anyone and he was duly qualified by CASA to be safe to conduct such a flight.

There is a lobby that says a Commercial Pilot would be safer. But, speaking as a commercial pilot, a CPL does not create pilots that are necessarily better or safer. The CPL licence is primarily to teach pilots to operate within the environment of working in an environment of commercial operators and operations manuals.

I think that pilots have an unfortunate tendency to be overly critical of other pilots that have accidents and that there is an air that we could have done better. Sometimes this is true, sometimes it is not. I think there are too many unknowns in this accident to pass judgement yet.

[Lookleft]

At least the CPL training provides experience in a wider field of operation and planning than a PPL. The CPL allows you to fly an aircraft for hire or reward, I'm at a loss to work out what the other definition stated means. Not too many CPLs are ending up in the news headlines at the moment but a lot of PPLs are.

[Lead Balloon]

The question is: Who has taken over LL’s PPRuNe account?

The real LL would know that a majority of the recently-reported serious accidents and incidents had CPLs or above at the controls. The real LL would know that plenty of PPLs have broader flight planning and actual operational experience than many CPLs. Finally, the real LL would know that there are a variety of operations that can be conducted, for hire and reward, that don’t require an AOC or CPL.

[Old Akro]

At least the CPL training provides experience in a wider field of operation and planning than a PPL.

Its been a long time since I did my PPL. But I would question this. Certainly CPL training does nothing to improve marginal weather flying or decisions. When I was still flying VFR and was concerned with marginal weather, I got an instructor and went and practiced it. But in the modern world of risk assessments and set syllabus, this type of thinking has been erased from flying schools by CASA. Flight training is no longer done in weather anywhere near as bad as I used to train in.

I loved my CPL training. But in terms of flying skills, frankly I learned more from Mountain flying in NZ, VFR in haze in Thailand, Aerobatics in Australia and doing navs in aerobatic aircraft with no nav instruments. Most of the pilots whose skill and judgement I really admire hold a simple PPL.

The CPL allows you to fly an aircraft for hire or reward

This is a CASA construct that is meaningless in my opinion.

You don't need a special licence to drive a car or truck for hire or reward. You don't need it for a boat. Why are aeroplanes so special? If the CASA flight training syllabus and BFR regime does not equip a pilot with all the skills required to be safe for this type of flight, then it should be fixed.

An Angel Flight accident is tragic and tear jerking and I find it as distressful as anyone. But quite frankly, the life of an Angel Flight passenger is worth no more and no less than that of one of my own kids. I think this goes for all Angel Flight pilots.

Not too many CPLs are ending up in the news headlines at the moment

Firstly, thats not completely true. Have a look at the first page of the ATSB aviation incidents. There have been quite a few airline incidents and secondly, do you know how many CPL's there are compared with PPL? Its a huge number difference.

A question that should be asked however, is why is there such a small proportion of the pilot population in Australia that have IFR ratings compared with the US ? Why does CASA make instrument ratings so difficult? How many lives would be saved if it was as cheap & easy to get and maintain an instrument rating in Australia as the USA?

[Cloudee]

You don't need a special licence to drive a car or truck for hire or reward. You don't need it for a boat. Why are aeroplanes so special? If the CASA flight training syllabus and BFR regime does not equip a pilot with all the skills required to be safe for this type of flight, then it should be
Your arguments will carry more weight if you get your facts right. A recreational boat licence does not entitle you to operate commercially where I come from, a coxwains ticket is the minimum requirement and then onto a masters ticket for bigger stuff. Very much like aviation.

[mostlytossas]

Tragic ending to a well meaning flight to help a fellow human. My only criticism of AF (I am not a volunteer for them but may in retirement) is that in the advert shown on TV it shows a $1m + aircraft (malibu on memory) assumed fully IFR with weather radar etc when in reality it will be a $60k single engine VFR aircraft that will turn up on the day. Why do people use this service? because it's free. What passengers have to realize is that flying in these aircraft is not the same or have the same safety as RPT. That is not saying don't go but just be aware and if the weather/pilot/aircraft is a concern to you don't get onboard. RPT is like train travel. Defined tracks, safety systems and monitoring to avoid collisions along the way etc along with the physical size of the thing that allows backup systems and dual drivers. Private aircraft are like private cars and pretty much do there own thing enroute with just 1 driver of variable experiance.
Would you jump into any car for a long trip with no questions asked?
AF probably need to look at their minimum experiance levels and teach online to both there pilots and clients the safe limits in flying VFR so passengers can ask the right question before they commit to travel, and the risks for pilots being pressured by passengers to meet appointments to takeoff if not VMC. Not saying this was the case here but we don't know.

[Bend alot]

mostlytossas.

CAsA requires basically the same maintenance for VH registered aircraft regardless of being RPT or Private.

They are the same LAME's but only some different paperwork and other compliances such as tool control.

Similar for Pilots CAsA sets the mark that a person becomes safe to fly with passengers then for hire and reward being commercial pilots and ATPL.


None of these qualifications make for safer flight if bad decisions are made - I believe this pilot was IFR rated (I may have that wrong) but the IFR rating is exactly the same for any pilot not just private pilots.

RPT is mostly procedure issues to hold a person to blame.

[john_tullamarine]

Bend alot

I think that you may have overstretched a bit in the suggestions in your last post ... perhaps you might like to amplify the reasoning by which you arrived at your conclusions ?

Might I suggest that there are quite some differences between maintenance classes and PVT/CHTR/RPT operations ....

[On eyre]

Spot on JT re Bend a lot. I do not know what the required probation period is for PP but suggest that an exception be made for Bend a lot and an extension of that period by a significant amount be given in order for wisdom to be gained.

[Lead Balloon]

Bend alot is merely one of the numerous log ins of a well-known serial pest. The selective dyslexia is the giveaway.

[Bend alot]

Can one direct me to the differences for getting an IF ratting for PVT/CPL and RPT operations - I was of the understanding they are the same.

Many maintenance orgs carry out maintenance on a private C152 to say RPT B200 aircraft.

The maintenance of these aircraft are both carried out I.A.W the AMO's procedures manual - I have yet to come across an EPM that has different levels for PVT, CPL & RPT ops within the same company. If we have a B200 in private cat and RPT cat, there would be very little difference in the maintenance required.

Even when we talk CAR 30 v 145 there is very little difference in the actual maintenance done on the aircraft or how it is done on the aircraft. one AMO said other than some name changes there was little difference between the CAR 30 & 145 approvals, with the main being the tool storage requirement.

However when it came to the office side of things extra staff were required for compliance. Something that brings light to this is years ago you would order 100 self tappers and get them in a little bag with QTY, P/N & GRN - the last time I ordered 100 self tappers they all came in individual bags with their own GRN printed label as from the manufacture. Now that created 100 line entries to put in our store, 100 copies of the GRN document - then 100 entries on parts book out sheet (if I follow the EPM instructions) and 100 entries of P/N and GRN in log book. Not one of these extra entries makes the aircraft any safer but you might be fatigued when it comes time to screw them in.

I am also seeing cheat sheets for much of the compliance items in a effort to save time in 145 AMO's - never a good thing. While numerous audits are being carried out by many other than CAsA, they are missing what I think are some pretty serious and basic issues because they all have only looked at the paper product and not the product itself.

[StickWithTheTruth]

Bend alot is merely one of the numerous log ins of a well-known serial pest. The selective dyslexia is the giveaway.

Bit like that guy Creampuff or CMc eh LB?

[Bend alot]

All operations authorised by the PIFR are conducted
under the IFR to the same procedures and standards which
apply to other IFR aircraft conducting the same IFR operations.





For class A


As the system of maintenance will be assessed against the


requirements of the current edition of the manufacturer's


instructions, CARs and CAOs, it is advisable to use these


documents as guidance when developing the system.


Also a read of the CAsA Maintenance Guide For Owners/Operators clearly states for piston class B schedule 5 does not let you get away with less.

With class A CAsA certainly wont be going for anything different from the manufacturer (reputable one) states to do and when.

So on a King Air 200 the only extra thing that springs to mind between PVT and RPT and I might not even be correct is an extra hand held fire extinguisher in the cabin. Certainly the only added safety I can think of.

[Lead Balloon]

Bit like that guy Creampuff or CMc eh LB?I wouldn’t trust or believe anything posted in any of those names. Amateur troublemaker.

[Bend alot]

JT with all due respect they are procedural differences - the nuts and bolts are very much the same if not exact.

An exception will be to dodgy running pistons on condition past 12 year or TBO Hrs in PVT - but many charter aircraft legally do the same.

* But the prop has no exception!

So as 2 of my posts have now been released to view - I stand by my comment in the terms given or did you want a specific area of amplification?