For Once I Agree With AOPA

[Sunfish]

[The simple and inconvenient truth is that the loss of VH-FYM was directly attributable to CASA’s inflexible aircraft maintenance regulations and the inability for aircraft owners or pilots to obtain a simple over the phone approval to ferry an aircraft for the purpose of maintenance. Had such a facility been in place, the pilot would not have been under any pressure to undertake the accident flight.

https://aopa.com.au/bad-regulations-and-fatal-aircraft-accidents/?fbclid=IwAR15rIshMlyQiMhkJpK8LhxR-7M4ZLwH3Cjv8mGs3G6JJBBQ7JwpBUvLJ3Y

[Squawk7700]

Absolute tripe.

You can’t possibly blame Casa in any way for this crash.

If the weather is unsuitable, don’t take off, or turn back when required. Pressing on is the PIC’s choice.

If you are alive, you can always fly another day. You can never fly again if you’re dead.

[4forward8back]

It isn't that hard to get approval, is it?

I had to fly a 172 which was about a month over due on the annual. I called CASA, they pointed me to the correct form. Once the form was submitted, I had approval the same day. I wasn't happy at the cost mind you (about $200 from memory), but it wasn't my money so I didn't give it a lot of thought.

The LAME even told me that he didn't care how it got there, he'd still do the work. I didn't want to bust regs and it was easy not too.

[thunderbird five]

Having obtained a Special Flight Permit (is what you're talking about) once, to move an aircraft 25 miles from a private strip to an airport, it was not an over-the-phone 5 minute job, and took about a week or two to arrange via an obliging non-CASA person who needed various information about the aircraft to be satisfied that it was in a safe condition to be operated. It wasn't any great drama, I did 90% of the work for the guy, but he had the magic ticket to write it up. He gave us a seven day window to move the aircraft which was plenty.
An over-the-phone or online to get such a permit within an hour would certainly be a good thing, but someone has to sign their name to it in the end, and if it goes to schnitzel, they are on the chopping block.
I can go to Vicroads and just buy a permit to drive my unroadworthy car all over town for repairs for 28 days, or a one off trip to move it. No questions asked.

[CaptainMidnight]

Done it a few times; phone call to CASA to get the correct form, and approval granted later that day.

non-CASA person who needed various information about the aircraft to be satisfied that it was in a safe condition to be operated
That was probably your problem.

I can go to Vicroads and just buy a permit to drive my unroadworthy car all over town for repairs for 28 days, or a one off trip to move it. No questions asked.
If your car breaks down, you pull to the side of the road. End of story.

If your aircraft packs up enroute, slightly bigger issue for you, the aircraft and whoever or whatever is below ...

[Clare Prop]

This is why I have so little time for AOPA, this sort of nonsensical hyperbole. The reason was apparently VFR into IMC. That was 100% the responsibility of the pilot in command. AOPA don't even have the callsign correct in that quote.
Hold CASA responsible for things they are responsible for and hold pilots responsible for things they are responsible for.

[machtuk]

Absolute tripe.

You can’t possibly blame Casa in any way for this crash.

If the weather is unsuitable, don’t take off, or turn back when required. Pressing on is the PIC’s choice.

If you are alive, you can always fly another day. You can never fly again if you’re dead.



Spot on!
Hard to believe that pilots have to be spoon fed to make a command decision!
Again absolute tripe! Cant blame CASA at all!

[Capt Fathom]

I don't think private pilot's are subject to Human Factors or Threat and Error Management programs during their training. Some may be lucky enough to encounter it during other non-aviation activities.

Overpowering 'the urge to get there' requires a lot of patience, discipline and practise.

It's easy to make comments like 'What were they thinking? I'd never do that.'

Nobody goes out there to injure or kill themselves or others, but unfortunate decisions can lead to that.

Happens in motor vehicles everyday, but we still don't get it.

[Lead Balloon]

So we have an average GA aircraft that has an MR that’s about to expire. What actual risk arises in the real world the day after the MR expires, which risk did not exist on the day before the MR expires?

What is it that CASA does, in considering whether to issue a special flight permit or not, that mitigates that risk? How does the turning of some bureaucrat’s mind to the question whether an aircraft should lawfully be allowed to fly, and the decision by that bureaucrat to issue a special flight permit, mitigate any real risk that exists in the real world.

Walk me through the causal links.

[machtuk]

Fly any A/C with an expire MR then you do so at your own risk. Forget the chances of the wings falling off its the INSURANCE that would be void! Imagine the legal hassles the deceased family/s would have if God forbid a plane crashed which should not have been there in the first place! That would be a legal minefield!
Get an M/R extension then great but don't forget the Insurance angle!

[TempoTCu]

I don't think private pilot's are subject to Human Factors or Threat and Error Management programs during their training. Some may be lucky enough to encounter it during other non-aviation activities.

Overpowering 'the urge to get there' requires a lot of patience, discipline and practise.

It's easy to make comments like 'What were they thinking? I'd never do that.'

Nobody goes out there to injure or kill themselves or others, but unfortunate decisions can lead to that.

Happens in motor vehicles everyday, but we still don't get it.

Absolutely true. HF or a similar short book/study/exam on human psychology/decision making should be a requirement of any pilot flying outside of the circuit. As someone working towards CPL who identifies as someone who is "lucky enough to encounter it [HF/psychology experience] during other non-aviation activities" I feel I am qualified to make such a statement.

So we have an average GA aircraft that has an MR that’s about to expire. What actual risk arises in the real world the day after the MR expires, which risk did not exist on the day before the MR expires?

Lead Balloon, you are really at the very end of a very thin wedge. Risk delta from day -1 to day +1 is negligible, but then the argument becomes well if one day overdue is ok then why not two? If two days overdue is ok why not three? so on and so on. As with any cut-off point, an arbitrary point must be set and maintained else the system fails.

This is all just science and in no way represents my support or non-support to CASA, AOPA, or the accident findings.

[Squawk7700]

It would be good if there was a buffer like when you ring your LAME if your engine hours are about to go over.

[no_one]

It would be good if there was a buffer like when you ring your LAME if your engine hours are about to go over.


For the 100 hourly the USA has a buffer of 10 hours but only to transfer an aircraft for maintenance. The thing is though that these little bits of extra time cant be accumulated. ie if you go over by say 5 hours then the next hundred hourly is due in 95 hours. It gives a little bit of flexibility without the commercial pressure to constantly go over. It is also a little bit arbitrary but aircraft don't seem to be falling out of the sky from maintenance being a few hours either way....

I am not sure if they have a similar thing for annual inspections, I haven't dug out the regulations to check.

[vestro]

In the US you have til the end of the month for your annual, or you can fly to maintenance if you have time before you depart but will overrun enroute. But if you leave it a bit too long in the hanger after the annual you will be in a would of hurt to get to your maintenance shop. Ferry permits in the US system are a very expensive exercise. But once we adopt the US system all will be good.👍🙈

[Pinky the pilot]

The following anecdote may be of interest to some;:hmm:

Another lifetime ago on one pre wet season PNG day I was tasked to fly a 'Bongo Van' from Port Moresby to Kerema, do whatever flights were scheduled from that malarial infested swamp:*:mad: to the various bush strips inland of it, and once scheduled flights were completed or weather intervened, I was to return to Moresby.

After one or two sorties inland and having landed back at Kerema, whilst the refueller was going about his business I attended to paperwork which included checking the Maintenance release. To my surprise I found that there were only 10 minutes left on the aircraft before the 100 hourly!:eek:

Upon phoning the Chief Pilot, explaining my predicament and asking something along the lines of "wtf do I do, " his droll and calm reply was
"Well, your return flight to Port Moresby cannot take more than ten minutes now, can it?" :ooh:

On paper it didn't, did it!:=

[Lead Balloon]

Fly any A/C with an expire MR then you do so at your own risk. Forget the chances of the wings falling off its the INSURANCE that would be void! Imagine the legal hassles the deceased family/s would have if God forbid a plane crashed which should not have been there in the first place! That would be a legal minefield!
Get an M/R extension then great but don't forget the Insurance angle!So the only real risk that a special flight permit mitigates is the risk of not having insurance cover? Is that a risk to safety?

[MagnumPI]

I'm no professional, just a relatively inexperienced recreational pilot, but this accident resonated with me as I fly 172s usually and I know this area pretty well. The weather is renowned for changing very quickly in the Byron hinterland...

It seems a lot of you may be more experienced pilots who are judging the accident pilot fairly harshly. Perhaps it was a poor command decision to continue into poor weather, but there's no denying that he had put a lot of pressure on himself to get there, and the deadline of the MR would have only added to the pressure.

One other thing which is touched on in the report is that he had issues accessing NAIPS on the day before and day of the accident flight. If we presume that he almost certainly wouldn't have departed if he had known the weather at Ballina was that bad, so what caused the problem logging in? Was NAIPS down? If so, what a tragic misfortune. Yes, there were other ways he could have obtained a weather briefing, but as a day VFR pilot who might be thinking he is just on a quick jaunt down the coast, if it is CAVOK and good conditions at Southport he may have just assumed that he could easily turn back if the weather went to ****e.

[Possum1]

1. The pilot had other pressures on him that day; one was a social commitment and one the fact that his wife was driving down to Ballina at the time to pick him up, I was told.
2. Would the permit to fly have been granted if it was known that there was a maintenance organisation at the Southport Flying Club that was quite capable of doing a 100 hourly on a Cessna 172?
3. Despite his reported difficulties in logging on to NAIPS, the Maclean's Ridge webcam Australian Weathercam Network - Mcleans Ridges Webcam (http://www.weathercamnetwork.com.au/mcleans_ridges.html) was working and had photos and archived photos available from early morning that day showing the cloud sitting on the ground before and at the time of the accident. The archives, like most of this site, don't work any more as the site(originally a storm chaser's site) has largely been abandoned but they were working on the afternoon of the accident when I checked. This camera site is the only one in Northern Rivers area that I know of at the time and is about 7km from the crash site. Whether the site was live and working prior to the flight and could have been accessed and used as part of the pilot's flight briefing, I don't know.

The Murwillumbah Aero Club cameras have been put online more recently but they weren't operational at the time.

[Squawk7700]

The Murwillumbah Aero Club cameras have been put online more recently but they weren't operational at the time.

The YMUR Cameras came online in 2018 over a year after this accident. They are privately owned and operated and are not related to the Aero Club. Just an FYI.

[machtuk]

...........................more experienced pilots who are judging the accident pilot fairly harshly. Harshly???...….He died, judging harshly won't bring him back but it MIGHT make some other PVT VFR pilot think twice about doing the same thing!!!!! As sad as it is this death was totally avoidable!

[Squawk7700]

Seems he boxed himself into the last possible day to get his Annual done by changing dates multiple times to delay it for numerous reasons. It’s a 172, there are dozens of pilots that you could have trusted to fly it there for him safely that would do it for free.

[Capt Fathom]

judging harshly won't bring him back but it MIGHT make some other PVT VFR pilot think twice about doing the same thing!
Realistically, no it won't. The next person will fall into the same trap.


Seems he boxed himself into the last possible day to get his Annual done by changing dates multiple times to delay it for numerous reasons.


A little dramatic?

He delayed his departure on two occasions due to the weather, resulting in the final flight taking place the day before the annual inspection was due.

[Squawk7700]

You needed to combine those two statements to give the correct context.

[jonkster]

I hesitate to comment because we are talking about a tragedy - someone's life here. A family shattered. I feel uncomfortable about using this incident to push an agenda by AOPA (as much as I think CASA is a debacle and that I generally support AOPA).

Dispassionately looking at it, he had to judge between letting a MR expire and flying into IMC without training or appropriate equipment. He in the end, chose the second option. :(

If you stuff up and overrun an MR I would say better to fly with an expired MR, with a risk of a fine (probably unlikely), than fly into IMC and gamble your life! (Of course best option would be - wear the inconvenience - get an approval but whatever)

We drum into student pilots the incredible folly of going into IMC if not trained or equipped. Pilot's will (almost) universally say how foolish it is. Yet... it keeps happening!
That to me is the issue. Why? It has been like this for ever. This is where the problem lies. People keep doing it! And in the huge majority of cases *not* because of expired MRs !

Whether it is to facilitate maintenance, pressure to get home or whatever, the responsibility is on the pilot to choose what to do, (not on the regulator, passengers or family wanting to get home or whoever is applying the pressure).

Could there be better options to ferry aircraft needing maintenance? Sure but my personal opinion is - not for reason that lacking such options forces people into IMC. Claiming it is CASAs fault in this case doesn't gel with me (and I think it is inappropriate for AOPA to use it here - this is a tragedy where a pilot pushed into IMC, not an issue of a regulator forcing him to do it).

I am unhappy that AOPA are linking this here.

My (personal) 2c

[Possum1]

Maybe I should have been more succinct. There was a maintenance organisation located at the origin of this flight which was perfectly capable of doing a 100 hourly on a C172!

[machtuk]

I hesitate to comment because we are talking about a tragedy - someone's life here. A family shattered. I feel uncomfortable about using this incident to push an agenda by AOPA (as much as I think CASA is a debacle and that I generally support AOPA).

Dispassionately looking at it, he had to judge between letting a MR expire and flying into IMC without training or appropriate equipment. He in the end, chose the second option. :(

If you stuff up and overrun an MR I would say better to fly with an expired MR, with a risk of a fine (probably unlikely), than fly into IMC and gamble your life! (Of course best option would be - wear the inconvenience - get an approval but whatever)

We drum into student pilots the incredible folly of going into IMC if not trained or equipped. Pilot's will (almost) universally say how foolish it is. Yet... it keeps happening!
That to me is the issue. Why? It has been like this for ever. This is where the problem lies. People keep doing it! And in the huge majority of cases *not* because of expired MRs !

Whether it is to facilitate maintenance, pressure to get home or whatever, the responsibility is on the pilot to choose what to do, (not on the regulator, passengers or family wanting to get home or whoever is applying the pressure).

Could there be better options to ferry aircraft needing maintenance? Sure but my personal opinion is - not for reason that lacking such options forces people into IMC. Claiming it is CASAs fault in this case doesn't gel with me (and I think it is inappropriate for AOPA to use it here - this is a tragedy where a pilot pushed into IMC, not an issue of a regulator forcing him to do it).

I am unhappy that AOPA are linking this here.

My (personal) 2c

Well said there & it about sums it up. I am disgusted with AOPA for even thinking this outcome had anything to do with CASA! The Regs are plain & simple (in this case)
VFR drivers will continue to die as well as take others with them, the reasons are known & unknown, sadly we as a pilot community just have to live with the fact that humans don't make smart pilots sometimes. The 2 CSF flights that ended in tragedy are the perfect Eg's! ALL pilots are responsible for their own actions!

[Sunfish]

I think what AOPA is trying to get at is that the rules don’t encourage sound decision making, merely blind obedience. BTW, the pilot would cop a felony conviction, even if just a “fine”. That is not trivial .

[Lead Balloon]

Absolutely true. HF or a similar short book/study/exam on human psychology/decision making should be a requirement of any pilot flying outside of the circuit. As someone working towards CPL who identifies as someone who is "lucky enough to encounter it [HF/psychology experience] during other non-aviation activities" I feel I am qualified to make such a statement.



Lead Balloon, you are really at the very end of a very thin wedge. Risk delta from day -1 to day +1 is negligible, but then the argument becomes well if one day overdue is ok then why not two? If two days overdue is ok why not three? so on and so on. As with any cut-off point, an arbitrary point must be set and maintained else the system fails.

This is all just science and in no way represents my support or non-support to CASA, AOPA, or the accident findings.”Science”? Are you kidding?

An “arbitrary point must be set”? Which of the laws of physics says that?

And if the point is “arbitrary”, it follows that it is not supported by “science”.

The actual data show that most GA aircraft are over maintained, causing maintenance-induced failures.

Does anyone really believe that the airframe of an average GA aircraft and the equipment fitted to it magically degrade at a rate that is - surprise surprise - OK at the magic man-made numbers of 100 hours or 1 year - such wonderfully round numbers - but not OK afterwards. The data show that those numbers were - to use a scientific term - a complete arse pluck.

I ask again:

What is it that CASA does, in considering whether to issue a special flight permit or not, that mitigates that risk? How does the turning of some bureaucrat’s mind to the question whether an aircraft should lawfully be allowed to fly, and the decision by that bureaucrat to issue a special flight permit, mitigate any real risk that exists in the real world.

Walk me through the causal links.

[Squawk7700]

BTW, the pilot would cop a felony conviction, even if just a “fine”. That is not trivial .

Sunfish, you should go and spend a day in the Melbourne Magistrates Court. You might learn something about what happens in a courtroom. If you think that the pilot/owner would cop a "felony" conviction for this, you are somewhat mistaken.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Real world example is required...this youtube may as well be on another planet
Trent Palmer You Tube

This guy has a pot that drops a valve guide, field repair and flown out. This entire episode will never be allowed to happen in Australia..Is it safe? What level of safety is "lowered" to allow this field repair? What difference would a piece of paper make?

EDIT- not exactly in the spirit of the thread. However, please look at this along the idea..pressure to fly the plane back to "My" LAME or be able to get "My" LAME to fly/drive/callout to the location and rectify the situation.

[Clare Prop]

I had to get one of these a couple of years ago to ferry an aircraft following a prop strike (thanks to a useless ARO who failed to put red and white cones around an unserviceable part of the parking area) whose annual had expired while the repairs were being done. I filled in form 725, CASA put me in touch with an aeronautical engineer who spoke to my LAME and with a few conditions, eg no passengers to be carried, the aircraft was back at base a couple of days later; it took longer to find an available ferry pilot and get them to the aircraft than it did to get the permit.

[thorn bird]

Field Repair:

https://youtu.be/123G3aPEkdM


Always said speed tape was the most useful addition to the tool box