Plane crash at Orange Airport

[Desert Flower]

A light plane has crashed at Orange Regional Airport.

Two people are being treated for serious burns to their head and hands after the plane crashed about 7pm.

A male and female, both aged in their 40s, are in critical conditions and are being airlifted to Sydney’s Royal North Shore Hospital.

The woman has been flown by NSW Ambulance helicopter and the man will be taken in a second helicopter.

Seven NSW Ambulance road crews also attended the scene.

According to local rural fire service, Canobolas Zone NSW RFS, the plane caught fire.

“Brigades are on scene as a light plane has come down at Orange Airport causing it to catch fire. The occupants have been released and transported to hospital. Police, Ambulance and FRNSW are also on scene,” the RFS said.

DF.

[nonsense]

https://www.centralwesterndaily.com.au/story/5403485/trainee-pilot-instructor-in-crash-at-orange-airport-photos-video/
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/two-people-seriously-injured-in-plane-crash-at-orange-airport-20180515-p4zfi7.html

[Desert Flower]

FlightAware shows a SR22 landing at YORG earlier in the day - VH-SGS.

DF.

[cstleon]

Looks more like VH-PDC. Thoughts and prayers with the occupants.

[Desert Flower]

Looks more like VH-PDC. Thoughts and prayers with the occupants.

Looking at the tracking for that aircraft, I concur. Owned by INTACT AVIATION PTY LTD.

DF.

[Propstop]

Orange light plane crash pilot and instructor were testing aircraft before crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-16/orange-plane-crash-pilot-instructor-identified/9766718)
The ABC have got the pic wrong, a Cirrus does not look like an Aztec!

[Desert Flower]

Orange light plane crash pilot and instructor were testing aircraft before crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-16/orange-plane-crash-pilot-instructor-identified/9766718)
The ABC have got the pic wrong, a Cirrus does not look like an Aztec!

Even though that Aztec looks a bit banged up I still reckon the occupants got out in better condition than those in the Cirrus!

DF.

[triton140]

I think Catherine Fitzsimons was the pilot in the CASA Out 'N Back videos ...

[Alpha Whiskey Bravo]

I think Catherine Fitzsimons was the pilot in the CASA Out 'N Back videos ..

Yes that is correct. I hope they both have a speedy recovery.

AWB

[Ethel the Aardvark]

Hope the first responders did not put themselves at risk with the old exploding parachute trick.

[KRviator]

Would any of them really know A) It's a Cirrus that's down, and B) The Cirrus (Cirrus's/Cirri?!?) are fitted with a BRS?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
It has been claimed that that terrible accident at Orange occurred because they were doing a biennial flight review at night. As we know, in the past this has not been required – it only came in with Part 61 – and it is not required in other countries in the world.

Is this evidence of CASA rules ending up with a serious accident, where people have been burnt and could have resulted in fatalities?

This should be looked at.
Tootle pip!!

[Squawk7700]

I call bollocks.

The aircraft didn't know it was dark.

Was the aircraft still being flown VFR?

How did the darkness cause the crash assuming that at least the instructor was suitably rated / endorsed?

[topdrop]

occurred because they were doing a biennial flight review at night.
Make up your mind:

It's not dangerous to fly at night and you don't need a Night VFR endorsement, ala USA or;
It is dangerous to fly at night and you need a Night VFR endorsement ala Oz; or
It is dangerous to fly at night and you don't need a Night VFR endorsement - based on the above and your other statements

[Seagull201]

feedback....

It's dangerous to fly at night in any single engine aircraft.

Any night flying and the Night Visual Rating, should be done in a twin, with an instructor only and night circuits should be icus only.

Night flying in a single engine turbine seems to be reliable at the moment.

Everyone is aware that night circuit training at a capital city airport,, shouldn't be done in a single,
as there's too much residential area around.

Correct me if i'm wrong, the news article about the Orange accident mentioned, the aircraft veered
off the runway to the right on landing and caught fire, the training pilot pulled the instructor out of aircraft in the last
moment and saved their life.

There was talk the runway lights went out during landing but the aerodrome cameras confirmed, the
lights stayed on.

Both pilots were burnt and injured.

Hope both persons can recover and live a normal life.

[mostlytossas]

You joke I trust☺

[Seagull201]

I'm referring to general aviation flying training at night.

I'm sure you're quite qualified to do a forced landing at night time and land on a highway, over a residential area and walk away from the aircraft uninjured.

Only if you're superman.

I'm sure it feels wonderful, flying in a single over terrain such as Katoomba at night.

At least in a twin gives an added safety factor.

When a single runs into a house a night whilst conducting circuits, rules will change in a heartbeat.

i'm not CASA mister, it's up to them, so don't panic.

[slats11]

feedback....

It's dangerous to fly at night in any single engine aircraft.

Any night flying and the Night Visual Rating, should be done in a twin, with an instructor only and night circuits should be icus only.

Night flying in a single engine turbine seems to be reliable at the moment.

Everyone is aware that night circuit training at a capital city airport,, shouldn't be done in a single,
as there's too much residential area around.

Correct me if i'm wrong, the news article about the Orange accident mentioned, the aircraft veered
off the runway to the right on landing and caught fire, the training pilot pulled the instructor out of aircraft in the last
moment and saved their life.

There was talk the runway lights went out during landing but the aerodrome cameras confirmed, the
lights stayed on.

Both pilots were burnt and injured.

Hope both persons can recover and live a normal life.


Plane impacted ground just outside perimeter of airport. Understand this happened after take-off.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2018/aair/ao-2018-038/

Lets wait and see if it was engine failure or not. If it was, would a singe failure in a twin immediately after take-off (crash at perimeter) be safer than failure in a single? Especially at night? Or would the remaining engine fly you to the crash?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Whether you like it or not, flying a training/checking ride at night adds an extra element of risk ---- simple fact.

This is why legitimate airlines will not conduct asymmetric or a number of other exercises in non-normal configuration at night, outside a simulator.

We have on the books some very serious/fatal accidents during training at night, that probably would have been less serious/wouldn't have happened at all, in daylight --- think Metro at Tamworth, light twin at Camden, just for two.

Glib statements like "the aeroplane doesn't know it night" do no more than reveal a distinct lack of understanding of risk management --- but we know there are no shortages of smart -a ---s (alecks) in aviation.

The fact remains that having to do a biennial flight review at night, not done anywhere else I know of , and introduced by CASA without, as far as I can find, any risk analysis/justification or directed consultation, adds an additional avoidable risk factor.

Is CASA going to demand night asymmetric in a twin for a biennial review. My advice to anybody who is confronted by such a demand is to flatly refuse, it is just not worth the additional risk.

As most of you probably don't know, there are a number of CASA FOIs whom, it has been alleged,(which means I could, but I will not, give identifiable examples) will not fly a night test of any kind in a single, I wonder why that is??

Tootle pip!!

[Seagull201]

It feels more comfortable flying a twin at night and doing night training circuits in a twin than single.

Most instructors don't want to do NVFR training in a single because they value their life.

If someone wants to fly at night in a single, they can go ahead.

Night flying is safer when flown in a twin, or flown in any turbine/jet equipment where there's two pilots up front.

In reference to the accident, i'm referring to the TV channel news i saw yesterday.

Have to wait and see what the cause was, it's not a nice sight seeing pilots hurt.

[slats11]

@ Leadsled

Sure, night is higher risk than day

Twin can be safer than single. Certainly if failure when established in the circuit. Twin may not be much better if one fails at or immediately after take off.

Have to wait and see what happened here. Single failure immediately after take-off? - twin may (or may not) have helped. Other failure? - twin would probably not have helped. Loss of orientation and CFIT? - twin would not have helped.

[gileraguy]

and I see it was a New Moon on the night of the 15th ....

[Lead Balloon]

Flying at night is one thing. Practising emergencies and abnormal operations at night is another.

I hadn’t realised CASA had dealt with a perceived risk by mandating more risk. Well done 61!

[Capt Fathom]

Flying in any type of aircraft is not without its dangers. So no point singling out night single-engine ops.
Be it a single/twin, night/day, VFR/IFR or a jet at 35,000', hitting the ground or water in an uncontrolled state is going to hurt!
Let's not get carried away!

[Squawk7700]

LS. Please post the number of twin and single night crashes including noting if CPL, PPL, IFR versus NVFR ratings from the last 10 years to demonstrate your point. Otherwise it's moot.

[outnabout]

Leadsled:
"We have on the books some very serious/fatal accidents during training at night, that probably would have been less serious/wouldn't have happened at all, in daylight --- think Metro at Tamworth, light twin at Camden, just for two."

I call BS on your statement.

We also have an Embraer at Darwin Airport, 2010, and a Conquest at Renmark 12 months ago - both in broad daylight.

The aircraft doesn't know if it is day or night. You may describe this as a "glib statement" but it is a fact.

[Lead Balloon]

So forced landing practise at night would be no riskier than forced landing practise during the day? EFATO practise?

[dhavillandpilot]

Square 7700

the one that comes to mind is the metro at Tamworth doing EFATO .

[gupta]

Folks,

We have on the books some very serious/fatal accidents during training at night, that probably would have been less serious/wouldn't have happened at all, in daylight --- think Metro at Tamworth, light twin at Camden, just for two.



Hi Leaddie

Try 29 May 1989, C210 FMW at Alice Springs

That wouldn't have happened in daylight either

[Tankengine]

The aircraft doesn't know if it is day or night. You may describe this as a "glib statement" but it is a fact.
The aircraft doesn’t but the pilots do! Aircraft also doesn’t know where the ground is.
Having done quite a bit of night instructing I see flight reviews to keep a night rating as overkill and an increase in overall risk for little gain. (And expensive)

[KRviator]

Whether you like it or not, flying a training/checking ride at night adds an extra element of risk ---- simple fact.
This is why legitimate airlines will not conduct asymmetric or a number of other exercises in non-normal configuration at night, outside a simulator.
We have on the books some very serious/fatal accidents during training at night, that probably would have been less serious/wouldn't have happened at all, in daylight --- think Metro at Tamworth, light twin at Camden, just for two.
Glib statements like "the aeroplane doesn't know it night" do no more than reveal a distinct lack of understanding of risk management --- but we know there are no shortages of smart -a ---s (alecks) in aviation.So your opinion is that you should not undergo recurrent checks to validate your competency on a rating that you hold? Extending that somewhat, why bother performing a CIR renewal in actual IMC? Afterall, it is less risky to do it in day-VMC, isn't it? Actually, why not do all training in Day-VMC? The fundamental issue in most of these accidents seems to be overconfidence by the checker, in that he is unable/unwilling to correct a trainees mistake resulting in a CFIT prang. Many times over. Not necessarily when they happen. Of course it is easier to see a situation going pear-shaped during the day, but if you cannot detect the same scenario at night, then you have no business conducting the renewal...The trainee deserves better,

It's all well and good to say that 'proper' operators and the airlines will use a sim for riskier operations, and that is a valid claim when a suitable simulator is available...Most times, for GA anyway, this is simply not the case. That is the unfortunate reality, whether or not it is liked.

[mostlytossas]

Some of you blokes need to get a reality check. Of course flying at night has more risk than day, but only slightly and mainly if the aircraft should suffer an engine failure (a rare event in a certified GA aircraft ) or due to spacial disorientation. The key to most of the risk minimization IMHO is currency on type. I have seen a 747 captain with 1000's hrs experiance nearly crash a C172 on landing by flaring way too high and wash his airspeed off because he was not current on type. How do we know if the Orange crash was not due to simular? There is a risk in all flying be it very small. What do you blokes want? A rule that prohibits all flying unless the aircraft has 4 jet engines, 4 aircrew and capable of auto land at all airports. Better make it freight only too far to risky for passengers.

[Squawk7700]

How do we know if the Orange crash was not due to simular?

Thats an easy one to answer... because you don't flare a Cirrus to land it!

[Lead Balloon]

The aircraft doesn’t [know it’s night] but the pilots do! Aircraft also doesn’t know where the ground is.Having done quite a bit of night instructing I see flight reviews to keep a night rating as overkill and an increase in overall risk for little gain. (And exspensive)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This.

Nobody is saying don’t practise.

Just don’t practise in circumstances in which the gain is not justified by the increased risk.

[thorn bird]

Is night currency required in the USA?
If not, one wonders why its not raining aluminium over there given CAsA's insistence its a "Safety" issue.
Never really seen the point of a high end corporate jet jockey
having to front his local flying school to do his mandatory three
circuits in a C150 because their out of Australian night currency.
Easy for the mainlines I guess "Bloggs shoot down to the sim and do three night circuits will you".
For a GA operator of a high end global thats a very expensive exercise in the aircraft.

[KRviator]

Is night currency required in the USA?
If not, one wonders why its not raining aluminium over there given CAsA's insistence its a "Safety" issue.
Never really seen the point of a high end corporate jet jockey
having to front his local flying school to do his mandatory three
circuits in a C150 because their out of Australian night currency.
Easy for the mainlines I guess "Bloggs shoot down to the sim and do three night circuits will you".
For a GA operator of a high end global thats a very expensive exercise in the aircraft.Said corporate jet jockey is authorised to perform operations under the NVFR so long as his MECIR renewal is current. CAsA sez so (https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/instrument-ratings). Why go renew your NVFR currency when your CIR authorises it anyway unless you plan on letting your CIR lapse?

[no_one]

Is night currency required in the USA?
If not, one wonders why its not raining aluminium over there given CAsA's insistence its a "Safety" issue.
Never really seen the point of a high end corporate jet jockey
having to front his local flying school to do his mandatory three
circuits in a C150 because their out of Australian night currency.
Easy for the mainlines I guess "Bloggs shoot down to the sim and do three night circuits will you".
For a GA operator of a high end global thats a very expensive exercise in the aircraft.

FAA requirements here:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/61.57

The FAA only require night proficiency for passenger carrying but it is only 3 takeoff and landings in the last 90 days. No passengers no requirement.

Also have a read of the requirements to keep an instrument rating current over there. If you fly regularly no need for an IPC... They must have carnage in the skies...

[On eyre]

KRa you are incorrect. Said jet jockey must have night currency as well as current MECIR - three night takeoffs and landings if to carry pax otherwise one of each.

[KRviator]

KRa you are incorrect. Said jet jockey must have night currency as well as current MECIR - three night takeoffs and landings if to carry pax otherwise one of each.I think you will find that is only if you are exercising the privilege of the NVFR rating. If you are conducting ops under the NVFR by virtue of your CIR the requirements of Part 61.965 do not apply.

[LeanOfPeak]

Thats an easy one to answer... because you don't flare a Cirrus to land it!

Ah... you mean in the tail wheel Cirrus?

[Squawk7700]

There's a few pilots out there that probably wish their Cirrus had had a tail wheel when they scraped the tail on the ground when they didn flare.

The Cirrus is one of the easiest aircraft to land at night.

[roundsounds]

KRa you are incorrect. Said jet jockey must have night currency as well as current MECIR - three night takeoffs and landings if to carry pax otherwise one of each.
or successfully participating in a recurrent training program approved by CASA under CASR 61.040.

[Stab Bar]

Any night flying and the Night Visual Rating, should be done in a twin, with an instructor only and night circuits should be icus only.
Night flying, dual or solo, in a single is fine if you train and plan properly, know your limitations and practice.

Everyone is aware that night circuit training at a capital city airport,, shouldn't be done in a single,
as there's too much residential area around. I'm not 'aware' of that. Maybe trucks and cars shouldn't drive down roads in residential areas either.

Night flying on dark nights away from extensive ground lighting needs a properly equipped aircraft, sound instrument skills and a good knowledge of sensory illusions and how to deal with them, it doesn't need a twin engine aircraft.

[Pinky the pilot]

Everyone is aware that night circuit training at a capital city airport,, shouldn't be done in a single,
as there's too much residential area around.


Nor am I 'aware' of that.

Night flying on dark nights away from extensive ground lighting needs a properly equipped aircraft, sound instrument skills and a good knowledge of sensory illusions and how to deal with them, it doesn't need a twin engine aircraft.

Definitely concur with the above.:ok: The first job I ever had after gaining my CPL and a MECIR was a casual job, six days on and four off IIRC, based in the Moomba Oil and Gas fields, flying a C206. I was allowed (indeed encouraged) to do one hours night circuits every three tours.

Taking off from RW 30 on a moonless night you were effectively IMC from passing the last runway lights until turning downwind.

I can still vividly recall the very first take off I did under those conditions.:ooh: I suspect that anyone reading this who has had the same experience will know exactly what went through my mind at the time!

[LeadSled]

It's all well and good to say that 'proper' operators and the airlines will use a sim for riskier operations, and that is a valid claim when a suitable simulator is available...Most times, for GA anyway, this is simply not the case. That is the unfortunate reality, whether or not it is liked.

KR,
If it is good enough for organisations like Qantas to prohibit a range of exercises at night, not limited to asymmetric, when an actual aircraft is used, ii's good enough for me.
In the case of major airlines, I know the record that resulted in the introduction of such restrictions, and all these aircraft were/are FAR 25 or equivalent aircraft, not FAR 23 or earlier CAR light aircraft standards.

So it should be very clear what I am saying, and I repeat, any candidate for any test, in an actual aircraft, who is invited to conduct asymmetric exercises at night should refuse.

The fact that accidents happen in daylight is irrelevant, and as for crash mentioned at Darwin, people should acquaint themselves with the detailed causes ---- indeed, I would go so far as to say it "was caused" by unnecessarily risky training demands by CASA. I have a strong suspicion that similar, but not identical demands played a dominant role in the Renmark loss. Our steady death toll on asymmetric training/checking in Australia speaks for itself.

It is a nonsense to suggest that the additional risks of carrying out such training at night is trivial, and should be ignored.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Gupta, I just mentioned two night asymmetric training accidents that came immediately to mind, but we are not short of night accidents in GA aircraft.

[On eyre]

KRviator might I respectively suggest you look at Part 61.395 (2) which applies to all licences and ratings for passenger carriage at night.

[Desert Flower]

Taking off from RW 30 on a moonless night you were effectively IMC from passing the last runway lights until turning downwind.

I can still vividly recall the very first take off I did under those conditions.:ooh: I suspect that anyone reading this who has had the same experience will know exactly what went through my mind at the time!

Same as taking off from RW 11 at YLEC on a moonless night - it's as black as the insides of the proverbial dog out to the east. At least taking off from RW 29 you have the town lights once you get airborne.

DF.

[Two_dogs]

KRviator might I respectively suggest you look at Part 61.395 (2) which applies to all licences and ratings for passenger carriage at night.

I added a post mentioning this yesterday but removed due relevance. 61.395 (2) is for passenger carriage, not two crew dual training flights?

[gileraguy]

With the Cirrus Perspective by Garmin fitted to the G5, i wonder if that has Synthetic Vision as standard ???

[On eyre]

Yes Two Dogs but the original reference by KRA was a response to Thorn birds first mentioning of corporate jet jockey.
My post responded to that not this particular training incident.
However maybe Part 61.395 (2) might apply to the instructor. An instructor on here might enlighten us.

[Capt Fathom]

Has anyone heard how the 2 pilots are going?

[catseye]

One out of hospital was last report. https://www.centralwesterndaily.com.au/story/5427107/wheeler-discharged-from-hospital-fitzsimons-stable-after-plane-crash/

[Cloudee]

Final report out. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5776393/ao-2018-038-final.pdf

[Denning]

guys. Apologies if this seems a stupid question but its something I’d like to get clarified. If we say that circuit training at night in a single under NVFR is an unacceptable risk, and this extends to doing this during a BFR, isn’t this a statement that single engine NVFR itself is an unacceptable risk and should not be undertaken (ie scrap the NVFR rating altogether and prohibit single engine ops to day VFR only)?

It seems to be that if recurrent training for a particular rating is too dangerous, doesn’t that make exercising the privileges of the rating also too dangerous? If recurrence training at night is stopped, but the NVFR is still available we are basically saying that once you have a NVFR you should never have your night flying reviewed or monitored? Doesn’t this make NVFR even more dangerous.

i want to be clear, I do not have the experience to give any informed view as to whether or not conducting recurrency training in a single at night is an unacceptable risk. However, if we accept that it is, doesn’t that make night flying in a single generally an unacceptable risk?

Denning

[mcoates]

In the USA every PPL license allows you to fly overnight. There are actually very few countries that have a separate night VFR endorsement.

Statistically the USA has more night incidents than what we do in Australia but I believe this is because there are just so many aircraft over there by comparison and the fact that their weather conditions are more volatile and mountains much higher.

[Lead Balloon]

guys. Apologies if this seems a stupid question but its something I’d like to get clarified. If we say that circuit training at night in a single under NVFR is an unacceptable risk, and this extends to doing this during a BFR, isn’t this a statement that single engine NVFR itself is an unacceptable risk and should not be undertaken (ie scrap the NVFR rating altogether and prohibit single engine ops to day VFR only)?

It seems to be that if recurrent training for a particular rating is too dangerous, doesn’t that make exercising the privileges of the rating also too dangerous? If recurrence training at night is stopped, but the NVFR is still available we are basically saying that once you have a NVFR you should never have your night flying reviewed or monitored? Doesn’t this make NVFR even more dangerous.

i want to be clear, I do not have the experience to give any informed view as to whether or not conducting recurrency training in a single at night is an unacceptable risk. However, if we accept that it is, doesn’t that make night flying in a single generally an unacceptable risk?

Denning

Terms like “unacceptable risk” and “too dangerous” are simply subjective value judgments. There are ways of putting objective numbers and costs on aviation risks, but those days are long gone in many places including, sadly, Australia.

[Denning]

Terms like “unacceptable risk” and “too dangerous” are simply subjective value judgments. There are ways of putting objective numbers and costs on aviation risks, but those days are long gone in many places including, sadly, Australia.


i absolutely agree with the above, however, my question is different. I suppose the question I’m asking is that if (for the sake of argument) one does hold the view that NVFR recurrence training or including it as part of BFR is a risk they would not be prepared to take (and a number of people in the posts above do seem to hold this view), isn’t that person also saying that any single engine NVFR flight is too dangerous? Otherwise, it would seem odd to say that conducting SE NVFR ops generally is ok, but there is some added element of risk when undertaking circuits at night with an instructor on board.