VH-YTM final report

[Desert Flower]

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

DF.

[machtuk]

So sad and so unesesary -:(

[kaz3g]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-13/atsb-releases-findings-into-fatal-angel-flight-crash/11407294

[Sunfish]

I haven’t yet found the flaw in ATSB reasoning, but I used to do something like this sort of work years ago.

While I may well be mistaken, ATSB has come to some what appear to be startling conclusions;

1. Angel Flights are seven times more dangerous than ordinary private operations. These private operations themselves are more than twenty times more dangerous than charter and RPT.

This implies that Angel Flight pilots are seven times stupider than the general GA pilot population or, as ATSB seems to suggest, there is a reality distortion field around ATSB operations that makes people idiots (seven times stupider!) when operating an Angel Flight.

But wait! There’s more.... Table B5, Technical occurrences, shows that the aircraft knows it is on an Angel Flight compared to a private flight and being malevolent, responds by making things break or fail in flight. The possible exception may be the engine, which seems to be non sentient and fails without regard to who is driving or where they are going.

Then of course there is the weather, birds and wildlife, all of whom seem to have it in for angel flights.

I have to say I am not convinced because “category of operation” is a rather imprecise term. We are not comparing apples with apples I think. For example a private operator doing dozens of scenic s from his home airport is not exposed to unfamiliar airports and less than perfectly sunny weather. A fairer test would be to look at private flights that match Angel flight trip durations - say four hours there and back and compare those safety occurrence records rather than comparing angel flight with someone doing circuit training.

Anyway, that’s my opinion FWIW.

[junior.VH-LFA]

If you really think that this isn't a case of an inexperienced operator uselessly plunging off into IMC (after just somehow miraculously not killing themselves in it minutes earlier) due to a perceived pressure that they were unable to accurately and effectively rationalise and mitigate, then you're kidding yourself.

I think that's the only really important part of the report. The stats and the like, I agree, seem pretty heavy handed and I'm not entirely sure what accuracy or even relevance I'd give them. At the end of the day the actions of the PIC were inexcusable. There is no safety related “fix.” What was carried out was a violation. In the future, there needs to be an assessment of what motivated the violation, and how to mitigate that risk in the future. If the answer to that is instituting tougher requirements, then that’s probably okay in my opinion. The death here was needless, tragic and genuinely avoidable.

That CCTV imagery is just genuinely horrifying. I can't fathom how anyone could rationalise launching BACK into that, with passengers, after so narrowly avoiding disaster and cheating death the first time; and yet it happened. Why?

[Sunfish]

Junior LFA you are right. I have no problem with that. Similarly the previous accident I think. But how do you extrapolate from two fatal accidents in ten years of operation to “systematically unsafe”? That is where I may have issues.

I can’t help thinking that there is some well connected greaseball waiting to launch a taxpayer funded alternative to AF.

As for the statistics about RPT being dramatically safer, it probably is, but one A380 going down in Sydney CBD will change that. Accident occurrences in RPT are very infrequent but large. The Feyneman appendix to the Challenger report is still worth reading again and again.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Junior LFA you are right. I have no problem with that. Similarly the previous accident I think. But how do you extrapolate from two fatal accidents in ten years of operation to “systematically unsafe”? That is where I may have issues.

I can’t help thinking that there is some well connected greaseball waiting to launch a taxpayer funded alternative to AF.

As for the statistics about RPT being dramatically safer, it probably is, but one A380 going down in Sydney CBD will change that. Accident occurrences in RPT are very infrequent but large. The Feyneman appendix to the Challenger report is still worth reading again and again.




I tend to agree with you WRT the data and the reasons why that is the focus of the report.

[Sunfish]

The answer to AF’S problems might be what my Dad did for me and I did for my son and others have done for their kids......An insurance policy; “if you have had too much to drink, or don’t trust your driver, then call a cab, anywhere, anytime, we will pay the cab fare absolutely no questions asked.” I only ever availed myself of that maybe twice, my son with me likewise.

How difficult would it be for AF to have an IFR professional and suitable aircraft as a backup on call, so a volunteer can bail without letting their patients down if they feel things are getting beyond them?

Having someone on call would cost money, but there would still be lower costs than a full professional outfit.

[Lead Balloon]

It’s beyond sad when the ATSB so shamelessly manipulates statistically insignificant data and coincidental clusters to support CASA’s knee jerk response to accidents during private ‘community service’ flights. Imagine living with the worry that something at your workplace could be causing cancer. That's the reality for workplaces caught in a cancer cluster scare. The latest alarm has been raised at the ABC's Melbourne studios, three years after a cluster of 17 breast cancer cases at the ABC Brisbane headquarters forced the site's closure.

Cancer experts say that in 99.9 per cent of clusters investigated, there is no underlying cause found, meaning that most clusters are mere coincidence. But that's little solace to staff members comforting stricken colleagues and wondering if something in their work environment might be threatening their lives.[My bolding.]

If CASA and ATSB were left to deal with this kind of stuff, mere coincidence and scaremongering statistics would be the basis of most regulatory activity. Oh wait...

So I’ll have a go at summarising the safety messages from the YTM tragedy:

1. Don’t fly in IMC if you don’t have a current IFR rating.

2. Resist external pressures to fly when you shouldn’t.

3. As a consequence of 1 and 2, always have a Plan B and a Plan C.

If only these lessons had been learnt before and some organisation were funded and responsible for aviation safety promotion - constantly and effectively repeating these messages and getting them across. Oh wait...

[Cloudee]

The answer to AF’S problems might be what my Dad did for me and I did for my son and others have done for their kids......An insurance policy; “if you have had too much to drink, or don’t trust your driver, then call a cab, anywhere, anytime, we will pay the cab fare absolutely no questions asked.” I only ever availed myself of that maybe twice, my son with me likewise.

How difficult would it be for AF to have an IFR professional and suitable aircraft as a backup on call, so a volunteer can bail if they feel things are getting beyond them?


They already have a backup plan. Cancel the flight if there is any doubt. It’s not that hard! There is no urgency, that’s why they are not going by ambulance of the fly docs. That is made clear to all pilots and participants.

[Sunfish]

The memorial to the victims should be a better service, not no service.

[Mark__]

Looking at the CCTV images in the report, the pure contempt this individual has for the lives of his passengers and himself is inexcusable. Whatever flight school turned out this product just 2 years before the accident should be very proud:D

[BigPapi]

Flight schools can't be held accountable for the decision making of a private pilot 3 years later.

[Lead Balloon]

Correct: We should blame Angel Flight.

[junior.VH-LFA]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/886x265/untitled_1_147450b706e191f7c7ba50eef13d27185c06e13b.jpg

https://untsorce.cool/metric/?mid=90f06&wid=51824&sid=&tid=7249&rid=MNTZ_LOADED&t=1565693637880

[Judd]

r https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5776600/ao-2017-069_final.pdf
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/27144/aair198902571.pdf

The first link relates to the ATSB report just released on the crash of the Tobago at Mount Gambier in June 2017. The report took just under two years to produce and contained approximately 90 pages. The vast majority of the report had little to do with actual loss of control. No wonder it took two years of delay before the report was released. Some readers may consider much of the report was superfluous. Unless interested in the legal minefield exposed in the report, most ordinary pilots would prefer to bypass the heavy stuff in order to get to the guts of the accident and hopefully learn from it.

The second link relates to the ATSB report on the fatal crash of a Grumman Cougar in August 1989 where an engine failed shortly after takeoff at night and the pilot lost control. That report took 12 months to be released and covered just four pages.. In contrast, the difference between the length of the two reports is notable. In both cases the cause of the accidents was loss of control less than a minute after takeoff.

[Dexta]

Re the CCTV/Cam images; I have noticed with our own web cam that if there is some moisture on it then the image looks worse that what it does if you go outside and look with your eyes. All I'm saying is that there can be a difference and that difference may be behind a decision that ended up being wrong.

[aroa]

Safety Digests have been telling us for yonks that experience is the key.
But CAsA doesnt believe that, just being a PPL, whatever yr experience, CAsA believes yr are bloody dangerous and do all the killing,
And now.! ..if you go Angel Flight this/ any PPL is 7 x more bloody dangerous..! Interesting "theory"
CAsA's reaction comes about because CAsA hate not being in Total Control and all times.
Once Pilot gets in the cockpit and starts up, a decision is made and there's absolutely nothing CAsA can do about it.
The pilot is exercising the PPL licence with incredibly stupid decision making
In both cases , both decisions to continue, were flawed and (tragically) fatal.
Its the decision making that is at fault. How to instil that into people.? Is there specific 'decision making' lectures for PPLs these days?
Maybe you just have to be a natural coward ( thinks, I could kill myself doing that !) and be 'risk averse' under certain circumstances...like entering IMC unqualified and pushing on in the coming dark, no NVFR.
Many years ago there was a run of CHT accidents in the Straits and Cape York, 7 of and 21 fatalities in less than a year.
Did CasA make any changes to the way CHT is conducted in remote areas...and vilify CPLs. No. That's just the way it is.
What was the title of the article regarding the fuel runout crash in Columbia, Bolivia?.. "Pilots, We can be heroes or murderers" Sums it up nicely

[thorn bird]

Would it be safer if Angel Flight pilots held instrument ratings?

In the USA over 80% of private pilots hold instrument ratings when practically none do here.

Why? In the USA it is affordable because it is not bound up in bureaucratic bullsh#t that doubles the cost of gaining one.

A classic illustration of how over regulation diminishes safety by suppressing participation.

Air travel is the safest mode of mass transportation; your odds of dying in a plane crash are about one in 11,000,000. That's an average of about 110 people per year, and those numbers include private planes and non-crash related accidents in addition to commercial travel. In fact, you're more likely to be struck by lightning, with a one in 13,000 chance for your lifetime. That's why the ATSB report is so flawed. They doctor their statistics to suit CAsA's agenda.

If CAsA had the courage of their convictions they would just ban community service flights.

Children dying of cancer or on the road to see their specialist would be on their heads, not that they would give a sh$t.

[Squawk7700]

Those conditions don’t even look suitable for IFR flight.

Agreed on the webcam though. Air services give us a low quality low res image and keep the good ones for themselves. It would have been good to see the proper images.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Senator Rex Patrick's response to ATSB report.

"Angel Flight offers an invaluable service to families in regional and remote areas burdened with an ill or disabled family member. Only two nights ago I spoke with Senator Hollie Hughes’ who had used Angel Flight for her own autistic son, Fred, to access city services from remote areas of NSW. She described it as a Godsend.

The findings in respect of community service flights are intensely bureaucratic in nature and clearly written by people sitting at a desk in Canberra without reference to any of the thousands of families that have been helped by organisations such as Angel Flight.

Indeed, it's hard to take the report’s analysis of Angel Flight seriously. It asserts that many flights can be replaced by commercial services almost blind to the costs of regional flights, their limited routes, and their limited schedules. Indeed, the data the ATSB uses to support its claim are based on the very narrowest of data sets.

The ATSB uses ‘lies, damned lies, and statistics’, coupled with predominantly subjective analysis, to portray community service flights as unsafe. Angel Flights use experienced pilots and safe aircraft. There is no difference in the safety case associated with a CASA certified pilot flying a mate to the footy in Melbourne and a CASA certified pilot flying someone to chemo therapy in Melbourne, except the ill patient is more aware of the qualifications of the pilots and the risks associated with a flight.

Its Pel-Air (Norfolk Island ditching) all over again - for that particular report the ATSB were found to be grossly incompetent and were ultimately required to redo the report.

If CASA and the ATSB were in charge of road transport, no one would be allowed to use the roads."

[YPJT]

Wow! Great to read Senator Patrick's comments but the arrogance of CASA and ATSB will mean it will largely fall on deaf ears.

[Sunfish]

But wait, there’s more.......

In using the safety system “occurrence” database for what is clearly a partisan political purpose - helping CASA destroy Angel Flight, the ATSB has not only utterly compromised its alleged independence but has destroyed any faith in the alleged anonymity of ALL reporting schemes, both mandatory and voluntary.

As for the analysis, I fail to understand why the ATSB has not discussed or commented on its startling finding that Angel Flight operations are seven times more dangerous than ordinary GA operations. The only reason I can think why is that at least someone is ashamed of this hatchet job.

It appears ATSB is now part of the problem, along with CASA.

To put that another way, I am aware, I think, of safety occurrence reports that are, to put it mildly, less than frank about what happened. The current ATSB behaviour seems to provide a strong disincentive to report anything at all if it can be avoided.

[Lead Balloon]

Angel Flight offers an invaluable service to families in regional and remote areas burdened with an ill or disabled family member. Only two nights ago I spoke with Senator Hollie Hughes’ who had used Angel Flight for her own autistic son, Fred, to access city services from remote areas of NSW. She described it as a Godsend.

The findings in respect of community service flights are intensely bureaucratic in nature and clearly written by people sitting at a desk in Canberra without reference to any of the thousands of families that have been helped by organisations such as Angel Flight.

Indeed, it's hard to take the report’s analysis of Angel Flight seriously. It asserts that many flights can be replaced by commercial services almost blind to the costs of regional flights, their limited routes, and their limited schedules. Indeed, the data the ATSB uses to support its claim are based on the very narrowest of data sets.

The ATSB uses ‘lies, damned lies, and statistics’, coupled with predominantly subjective analysis, to portray community service flights as unsafe. Angel Flights use experienced pilots and safe aircraft. There is no difference in the safety case associated with a CASA certified pilot flying a mate to the footy in Melbourne and a CASA certified pilot flying someone to chemo therapy in Melbourne, except the ill patient is more aware of the qualifications of the pilots and the risks associated with a flight.

Its Pel-Air (Norfolk Island ditching) all over again - for that particular report the ATSB were found to be grossly incompetent and were ultimately required to redo the report.

If CASA and the ATSB were in charge of road transport, no one would be allowed to use the roads.Hear! Hear! Senator Patrick.

Here is the crux of the problem: “invaluable service”. CASA does not put a value on community service flights and, even if it wanted to, it wouldn’t know how to balance that value against the cost of the risks. And once you resort to the rhetorical question: “what price a life?”, any mitigation at all is justifiable.

[Kooka]

Would it be safer if Angel Flight pilots held instrument ratings?

In the USA over 80% of private pilots hold instrument ratings when practically none do here.

Why? In the USA it is affordable because it is not bound up in bureaucratic bullsh#t that doubles the cost of gaining one.

A classic illustration of how over regulation diminishes safety by suppressing participation.


This! This is the lesson that should have come from this accident and many similar.

[aroa]

Ho Hum, ops normal ...from the bureaurats any old bull**** will do.!

[Sunfish]

Hear! Hear! Senator Patrick.

Here is the crux of the problem: “invaluable service”. CASA does not put a value on community service flights and, even if it wanted to, it wouldn’t know how to balance that value against the cost of the risks. And once you resort to the rhetorical question: “what price a life?”, any mitigation at all is justifiable.


‘’But that matter is dealt with every day by actuaries and risk management professionals.

The ICAO understands it.

https://www.icao.int/safety/SafetyManagement/Documents/Doc.9859.3rd%20Edition.alltext.en.pdf

[Lead Balloon]

Of course: it’s unavoidable in the real world where there is no such thing as zero risk. One description for it is “affordable safety”.

[0ttoL]

Full page advertisement in today's The Australian paper from Angel Flight.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/img_5036_7e2d72d9510ec35e93aeee8b135bb8e9e84579a6.jpg

[IFEZ]

Good to see Angel Flight defending themselves. That report is a joke. If that was a school assignment it would have been handed back with a big “F” stamped on it and an instruction to resubmit. Come on ATSB, that’s just embarrassing. What the hell is going on..? You’re trashing the legacy of what was once a world leading investigation agency. I just don’t understand how they can sign off on this tripe and think it’s acceptable or that no one will question its veracity.

[Stickshift3000]

I just don’t understand how they can sign off on this tripe and think it’s acceptable or that no one will question its veracity.

It's pretty clear to me that CASA has 'influenced' the content of this report.

[josephfeatherweight]

I agree with the general sentiment here that the ATSB report has a strange focus on irrelevant, plucked "statistics" that serve to make Angel Flight look bad.
However, from the first paragraph under the "Recommendations" heading in the Angel Flight response in the Australian is this:
The ATSB offered no safety recommendations to pilots flying light aircraft in bad weather.
and then:
It is regrettable, that the Bureau made no relevant safety recommendations, nor gave any guidance whatsoever, to pilots flying in poor weather conditions

WTF did they want the ATSB to say about this? How many times do the ATSB/CASA/NTSB/FAA/EASA/Flight Safety/etc have to tell people not to fly in IMC when they or their aircraft are rated to only fly in VMC?
Should the ATSB have said - "Pilots are reminded that they should remain VMC when they or their aircraft are NOT rated for flight in IMC - IMC is commonly recognised by NOT being able to see the ground and sky outside at the same time..."
FFS, I agree with most of what they have said in the article, but they do themselves no service by making silly statements like those...
Had Angel Flight offered any "safety recommendations to pilots flying light aircraft in bad weather."?? I think it's more their responsibility than the ATSB's...

[BigPapi]

Based on what's been presented, there could surely be no safety recommendations beyond what CASA, ATSB, and every school and instructor ever says...DO NOT FLY INTO IMC IF YOU OR YOUR AIRCRAFT ARE NOT SUITABILITY EQUIPPED OR RATED.

You can be caught out whilst airborne and the PIC may be able to offer some kind of reasonable explanation, but to make the decision to launch into it from the ground really is inexcusable.

[Squawk7700]

It’s really no different to one of their ground based earth angels, speeding to the hospital in a vehicle type that they are not licensed to drive.

[On eyre]

Joseph featherweight and BigPapi you are both on the money. ATSB ridiculous sector comparisons are not feasible or reasonable.
The obvious conclusions from this and the other AF fatal incidents are that the pilots f****d up and in my mind were driven by getthereitis which is the critical factor that must be addressed by AF in controlling how well intentioned pilots carry out there missions. Over the top actions by CASA will not solve this problem - more safety education might do so.

[Lead Balloon]

Irrespective of what ATSB continues to do to ensure its trashed reputation remains trashed, there should be:

1. More effective safety education, including more effective human factors education, not mere words parroting lessons already learned and not mere seminars and videos the equivalent of “drugs are bad”. They don’t count as “comprehensive safety education and training programs” in terms of CASA’s functions.

2. Less complicated (and therefore less expensive) paths to highly experienced private pilots to become instructors of key airmanship issues. Private VFR pilots with thousands of hours in their logbooks have a better insight into the practicalities and risks of VFR flight and human factors risks and, more importantly, more experience in how to mitigate them in the real world, than a freshly minted CPL Grade 3 instructor or an ATPL with 20,000 hours at 35,000’. Any idiot can say: “just don’t fly VFR when the weather’s IMC”. That’s not how to effectively mitigate the risks of ‘getthereitis’.

3. Less complicated (and therefore less expensive) paths to IFR ratings. PIFR has been stuffed by the complicators. (Yes I know that some theorise that the conditions at Mount Gambier in this case were not conducive even to IFR flight. That merely reinforces the other points.)

[machtuk]

We have, to date 6 deaths resulting from poor pilot decision making. The 2 AF pilots where licensed & qualified for the tasks at hand under the rules & regs governing each flight. We can all pontificate here 'till the cows come home but the basic facts are that both pilots made intentional decisions that had tragic outcomes, WHY? That question will always remain unanswered despite all the education/reports possible!
Humans are not very good at following rules, we see this demonstrated daily, we are a complex being & influenced by many factors for decision making even at times despite the obvious!
Can't bring those people back but can we learn from their demise? Sadly no:-(

[BigPapi]

Just don't fly VFR when the weather's IMC.

I must be an idiot.

Edit: -in credit to you Lead Balloon I very much understand what you're saying, that's not effective education or risk mitigation/management. But in this case, this wasn't a pilot that got caught out airborne, or made a marginal judgement call about cloudbase or visibility in a shower, this was a pilot who made a conscious decision to take off into IMC conditions.

[Old Akro]

The problem with this ATSB report is that it has been used to pursue a political agenda against community service flights.

The accident itself was tragic and the cause pretty much black & white without any real extenuating circumstances. They pilot had trouble landing visually. What bigger sign do you need to not immediately turn around and take off??

All pilots like me who have cancelled Angel Flights due to weather know that the Angel Flight organisation is extremely understanding and supportive in such circumstances.

The ATSB maliciously misrepresents the Angel Flight accident rate. It does not count the full hours of Angel flights.

And the life’s of the poor passengers are no more (or less) special because its an Angel Flight. This accident should be examined as an accident regardless of who is on board.

The CASA argue meant that community service flights should be charter flights is completely flawed. A
private pilot should be safe to carry passengers. Period. The CPL training and study is about working in a commercial environment that runs to time, has last minute changes, carries minimum fuel and is done day in day out so that duty times are an issue.

The ATSB / CASA should be really use these accidents as cause for reflection on a) whether the PPL flight training requires improvement, b) if the CASA safety education mechanisms are working and c) whether CASA’s bureaucracy around IFR ratings is discouraging pilots from becoming IFR rated and how many lives would be saved if Australia had the same level of IFR ratings as the US.

There is a real argument that CASA’s over regulation of IFR is costing lives.

[Lead Balloon]

I'm glad my underlying point was not lost, BigPapi. One of my many faults is that I tend to be too blunt/sarcastic. My apologies for that.

Just as any idiot can say: "just don't fly VFR when the weather's IMC", any idiot can pass another law or impose more restrictions each time someone dies in an aircraft accident. That was the point of Senator Patrick's analogy.

[Sunfish]

I am guessing, but from the passenger seat I think I can understand that as a VFR pilot I have little chance of surviving VFR into IMC. The trouble is that “in theory and with all the toys” you can see yourself surviving, but the reality don’t work that way.

‘’The BS training is a waste of time because foggles are not an effective simulation. You, I think, need to actually fly into bad weather to actually understand why it isn’t a good idea. I think i’ve got close enough while still VFR to realize what a mess going IFR without training would be. Sadly, I don’t think everyone else does.

[Centaurus]

The BS training is a waste of time because foggles are not an effective simulation. You, I think, need to actually fly into bad weather to actually understand why it isn’t a good idea Also "under the hood" is not particularly effective. It takes only a slight tilt of the head to see the occasional outside horizon which most students will try to do. The only realistic experience is in IMC and/or dark night. It might cost a few hundred dollars but providing the instructor has a current instrument rating and suitably qualified to instruct on instruments at night, a PPL should find that of significant value. As well, a seriously keen pilot will seek out a decent flight training device (simulator) available at numerous flying schools and pick up instrument flying practice that way.

It is arguable if you could count on some Angel Flight pilots going to all that trouble and expense though. Experience has shown that, whether you are a VFR pilot or not, instrument flying currency is the key because sooner or later you can count on being faced with flight into IMC whether planned or otherwise. . If you are going to be an Angel Flight VFR exponent, then an hour in a FTD every month or so, may save your skin.

[Squawk7700]

I wonder if there’s a link between older aircraft and higher crash probabilities...

In Victoria recently “they” came up with the conclusion that 75% of fatalities in vehicles occur in vehicles more than 10 years old because those vehicles lack the required technologies and safety features.

What they didn’t say was the average age of a vehicle in Victoria. Edit: the mean average is 9.

I’m thinking along the lines of glass panels, parachutes, airbag seatbelts, etc.

[Slippery_Pete]

Flame suit and helmet on...

To be honest, I don’t understand the outrage at ATSB over this report. In my mind, they got it right.

A pilot, under the pressure of get-there-itis which comes with medical situations made a series of horrifically bad decisions, which I hazard a guess, he would not have made if he had just taken himself for a fly for the day.

Whether the outbound or inbound flights are included in statistics - who gives a proverbial. If they’re not crashing on positioning flights but are crashing when there are pressures to get in/out/whatever, all that does is prove that decision making is failing with stress.

As for instrument training - I disagree. These PPLs are generally flying around safely and avoiding IMC as their licence REQUIRES at other times - but taking the risks when there’s some kid needing chemo.

Im also aware that we shouldn’t tar all AF pilots with the same brush, I’m sure there’s some great operators out there who continue to delay flights and make the right decisions.

This is what happens when you put commercial pressures on private pilots.

Next time you want to fly in and out of an airport where RPT multi-crew turbines are sitting on the ground delaying departure, perhaps it’s best to call it a day, rather than make a series of low level scud running orbits in an attempt to find a runway.

[Sunfish]

Commercial pressure on private pilots, my arse.

[Squawk7700]

Commercial pressure on private pilots, my arse.

Pete is spot on. You’re a PPL and all of a sudden you’re running to a schedule with strangers you’ve just
met boarding. You have to take care of their needs, be as on time as you can and there is a definite pressure to be there... you certainly don’t want to let them down, especially for something so important to them.

The most dangerous thing on an aircraft.... is a schedule.

[Bend alot]

Commercial pressure on private pilots, my arse.
How about pressure from the passenger of a private pilot?

That has probably taken a few lives.

Just to avoid a argument with the Minister for War & Finance is a commercial pressure.

[BigPapi]

If the private pilots in this situation are suffering from commercial pressure then they don't understand the operation that they are performing.

AF is not an emergency or air ambulance service.

[machtuk]

Pete is spot on. You’re a PPL and all of a sudden you’re running to a schedule with strangers you’ve just
met boarding. You have to take care of their needs, be as on time as you can and there is a definite pressure to be there... you certainly don’t want to let them down, especially for something so important to them.

The most dangerous thing on an aircraft.... is a schedule.



Have to agree, commercial pressure was probably the main factor in the pilots decision making.
Some don't realise that commercial pressure doesn't have to be tagged to commercial Ops alone but the 'pressure' in Pvt Ops is still there!
I've knocked back flights over the years due WX and other factors.
Theres a saying in the Aeromedical world......"no point in killing several to save one"!

[Sunfish]

I repeat. Put a commercial pilot in a C172 when his boss tells him to do something. You think that’s not pressure? Like the poor commercial sods who died when the wings were ripped off that C210’

commercial pilots free of pressure? My arse.

[On eyre]

I repeat. Put a commercial pilot in a C172 when his boss tells him to do something. You think that’s not pressure? Like the poor commercial sods who died when the wings were ripped off that C210’

commercial pilots free of pressure? My arse.


Sunfish you don’t get it - no one is saying it’s “commercial” pressure. What I believe everyone is alluding to is that “getthereitis”, which was no doubt the cause in this accident, (why on earth would you otherwise blast off into crap weather which you had just arrived in), is akin to commercial pressure. I acknowledge that many if not most AF pilots of whatever experience level know and recognise this, but not all. And that’s the problem.

[Okihara]

getthereitis, passenger pressure, flying to meet a schedule all are seem very plausible contributing factors. In the end, the pilot showed very poor judgement by proceeding to land in Mount Gambier in the first place and probably concluded from this that it would be fine to take-off again in similar conditions. Whether PPL should get an IR for angel flights is obviously debatable (I believe not necessary as these blokes should know when to make no-go decision) but I am strong advocate that basic IF (that's part of the PPL syllabus) should include at least some flying in real IMC. It personally wasn't until I did my own IR flight training and flew in clouds that I could truly appreciate how formidable an exercise this is. Those who "think they know" are just kidding themselves. Add to that some uneventful flying for a couple of years and there's the perfect mix to find out the pain of flying in zero visibility the hard way.

[BigPapi]

Including IMC conditions in the RPL/PPL syllabus as part of Basic IF would no doubt be a fantastic and worthy addition, however the exercise would be prohibitive to many schools who wouldn't have the resources available to conduct it (IFR aircraft and IRTE instructors).

[Sunfish]

I know I am overreacting having spent the day introducing a Five year old to the joys of skiing. I also should add that I am NOT an Angel Flight pilot nor associated with them in any way.

I am simply pissed off at first of all CASA, who senses that Angel Flight is an organisation with credentials that make it a threat to CASA domination, so they have, like many others, to be destroyed, then with CASA's lapdog, the ATSB who have produced a turd of an analysis in an attempt to justify its masters position. Then along come players and axe grinders who want to stroke their own ego by sinking the slipper into Angel Flight.

Of course it was "getthereitis"! I can't think of any other reason either. However two incidents of it in 10,000 odd Angel Flight over ten years are statistically insignificant. By that I mean rigorous statistical testing of the hypothesis "Angelflight pilots flights are more likely than the rest of the pilot population to suffer from gethereitis" will draw a big ******* blank at the 99.999% confidence level or ATSB would have shouted it from the roof tops by now.

So since that fails, ATSB then invents a convoluted pseudo scientific analysis claiming Angel Flights are seven times more dangerous than ordinary private flying! I looked in vain for the causal link in that steaming pile of **** for the link between runway incursions and gethereitis but haven't found it.

So CASA and ATSB would have the general public believe that Angel Flight is populated by weak minded emotionally unstable pilots with sub human flying skills to boot - the very dregs of the private pilot population! That is the exact conclusion and the obvious corollary is that Angel Flight should be destroyed as a danger to the man in the street, just like a dangerous dog. Nice one CASA, protecting us all the time. At least Angel Flight was able to kick CASA in the balls over that one -you licenced those pilots CASA, didn't you?

And the ATSB, now in full Marie Antionette mode, ruffles its corsets and tells Angel Flight customers not to use Angel Flight but instead to use Regular Public Transport to hospital - Rex, Qantas, Virgin or Jetstar! What are they smoking in Canberra?????

....And then people, come here to Pprune and solemnly nit pick and criticize Angel Flight - for trying to help people??? CASA and ATSB make the pre revolutionary French aristocracy look grounded and in touch with the common man by comparison, they are the problem.

There is a cure to this madness and it doesn't involve ******* over Angel Flight. Maybe we need our own form of French revolution in Canberra.

*The asterisked word involved is a synonym for intercourse with the suffix -ing.

[Okihara]

Agreed. I'm also not suggesting to make that a legal requirement for basic IF but just saying that the many schools in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide that already tick the boxes in terms of staff, fleet and weather would see their students benefit greatly from the experience of flying with an IR instructor in actual IMC (no peeking through the left corner of the hood).

[Okihara]

Of course it was "getthereitis"! I can't think of any other reason either. [...]
That's the thing. Maybe not. Maybe the bloke flew in in marginal conditions and thought to himself: "Come on mate, that's nowhere near as bad as people say". You just cannot rule out that the pilot might have felt overly confident in his abilities, perhaps in part due to the fact that "nothing ever happened" to him in similar conditions.

I would have liked to read something like that in the report because that threat is an insidious one.

[Sunfish]

I second Centaurus call for a few hours “real” IFR aspartame’s of the PPL syllabus.

My own untutored opinion of “getthereitis” is its a subset of human behaviours where people believe that, rationally, they can do something without having the experience to make an informed choice.

Examples:

- teenagers who think that driving 160 kmh on a suburban road is smart. They have never felt what it is like to start losing control at that speed.

- The weekend yachtsmen who think that weathering a depression in Bass Strait is easy peasy.

- The would be Military Rambo who has to discover the hard way that lying in the mud at 4am in freezing cold is not what they signed up for.

- The private pilot who thinks that all that Skyview stuff and GPS is going to save him in Instrument conditions coupled with severe turbulence.

We rationalise we can do this without training and experience. We can’t.

[Dexta]

"get-there-itis" isn't the sole domain of CSFlights, there are many pressures on a pilot when travelling, like not wanting to lose the hotel booking, car rental, family disappointment etc. etc. etc. Part of a pilots training, whether PPL/CPL/ATPL etc, is how to deal with this factor. ATSB are implying that doing a Community Service Flight (CSF) is somehow applying more pressure than a weekend getaway to the snow or a family wedding in Tasmania. To truly study the statistics you would need to look at all flights that come under this category - of course that data is not available. Maybe a better statistical analysis of Angel Flights would be to look at all incidents of VFR flights into IMC and then determine the purpose for each flight and find the percentage of those flights that are CSF's. Then you can say that whether or not there is something peculiar or not about CSF's.

On flying VFR into IMC in general, after doing my IR I read a few stories in the RA-Aus mag and spoke to a few people and the impression I got was that, because of whatever reason, a person found themselves entering IMC, they would generally tense up, be fearful to some degree and endeavour to get out of the clouds. Some persisted on, generally climbing, others would do a slow turn back all the while trying to watch their instruments. Obviously the ones who wrote the stories and could talk about it afterwards survived and the attitudes were mixed, everything from "it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be" to "I will never do that again!". Those attitudes probably determine the future outcomes for those pilots.

Learning a bit of Instrument Flying can be both good and bad, you need the confidence to only look at your instruments. Flying on a dark night is easier than day through broken clouds. At night you can only see your instruments, while during the day you can get distracted by glimpses of terrain and the tendency for visual pilots is to keep looking at the ground. All that head swivelling and turning will disorientate you very quickly. Certainly learn to fly and navigate on instruments but more importantly learn to trust those instruments.

[Slippery_Pete]

I know I am overreacting having spent the day introducing a Five year old to the joys of skiing. I also should add that I am NOT an Angel Flight pilot nor associated with them in any way.

I am simply pissed off at first of all CASA, who senses that Angel Flight is an organisation with credentials that make it a threat to CASA domination, so they have, like many others, to be destroyed, then with CASA's lapdog, the ATSB who have produced a turd of an analysis in an attempt to justify its masters position. Then along come players and axe grinders who want to stroke their own ego by sinking the slipper into Angel Flight.

Of course it was "getthereitis"! I can't think of any other reason either. However two incidents of it in 10,000 odd Angel Flight over ten years are statistically insignificant. By that I mean rigorous statistical testing of the hypothesis "Angelflight pilots flights are more likely than the rest of the pilot population to suffer from gethereitis" will draw a big ******* blank at the 99.999% confidence level or ATSB would have shouted it from the roof tops by now.

So since that fails, ATSB then invents a convoluted pseudo scientific analysis claiming Angel Flights are seven times more dangerous than ordinary private flying! I looked in vain for the causal link in that steaming pile of **** for the link between runway incursions and gethereitis but haven't found it.

So CASA and ATSB would have the general public believe that Angel Flight is populated by weak minded emotionally unstable pilots with sub human flying skills to boot - the very dregs of the private pilot population! That is the exact conclusion and the obvious corollary is that Angel Flight should be destroyed as a danger to the man in the street, just like a dangerous dog. Nice one CASA, protecting us all the time. At least Angel Flight was able to kick CASA in the balls over that one -you licenced those pilots CASA, didn't you?

And the ATSB, now in full Marie Antionette mode, ruffles its corsets and tells Angel Flight customers not to use Angel Flight but instead to use Regular Public Transport to hospital - Rex, Qantas, Virgin or Jetstar! What are they smoking in Canberra?????

....And then people, come here to PPRuNe and solemnly nit pick and criticize Angel Flight - for trying to help people??? CASA and ATSB make the pre revolutionary French aristocracy look grounded and in touch with the common man by comparison, they are the problem.

There is a cure to this madness and it doesn't involve ******* over Angel Flight. Maybe we need our own form of French revolution in Canberra.

*The asterisked word involved is a synonym for intercourse with the suffix -ing.

I hate CASA as much as the next gender neutral pilot. But if you can’t read your own rant above and understand your view is greatly warped because you have an axe to grind with aviation oversight, then no amount of me or others pointing it out will make one iota of difference. I can’t imagine any ATSB report being produced at the moment where you don’t throw your hands up in the air dramatically and wander off muttering CASA this and CASA that.

As for commercial pressures, I think you’re struggling to grasp the concept. A 200 hour pilot with a CPL and a pushy boss - they have 3x the experience under their belt, they have currency, they have more IF training, they have better theory and human factors awareness. Does that mean they won’t make a mistake? No. But they are better equipped to resist pressures of people and schedules - absolutely.

In my mind, AngelFlight involves private operations where the the possibility of get-there-itis is placed into the shoulders of pilots who don’t normally and who haven’t been trained to recognise and resist those forces. AngelFlight can throw their hands up in the air Helen Lovejoy style about statistics and ATSB has gone to the dogs blah blah blah... or they can suck it up, and invest that energy in training and awareness for their pilots about how to recognise and avoid these things in the future.

[Sunfish]

Pete, you are, of course technically correct about your commercial pilot. I believe I am also technically correct in stating that two VFR into IMC accidents involving Angel Flight in their Ten years of operation is statistically insignificant and is not a basis on which CASA or ATSB or anyone else for that matter, can draw meaningful conclusions about AF’s safety compared to the private pilot population, especially since the ATSB data is skewed by the vast volume of training flights.

My hunch would be that if you eliminated that data and compared apples with apples, Angel Flight would come out way ahead in the safety stakes. I’m not sure meaningful conclusions could be drawn comparing charter, air work or low density RPT either.

The ATSB analysis of “occurrences” is crap not worth a mention.

I thus believe that talking about the alleged “pressures” on Angel Flight pilots as if they were real and not already being mitigated by Angel Flight has no basis in fact.

Furthermore, that means that both CASA and ATSB are being dishonest in their conclusions and actions against community service flights for purely political reasons.

If we wanted to test the hypothesis that AF pilots are frequently running unmitigated risks, then my suggestion would be to have one or two IFR equipped aircraft and commercial pilots on call and see how many times AF pilots bail during an operation and avail themselves and their pax of that backup service.

Going way back to the 1970’s, I designed and built a system for Ansett and CAA to monitor the entire airline fleet - looking for safety trend anomalies in maintenance and aircraft reliability to ensure that both Ansett and CAA were identifying and investing their time and money in investigating real safety issues and not just reacting to random failures. It appears ATSB and CASA are not interested in data driven investigations any more.

[machtuk]

I hate CASA as much as the next gender neutral pilot. But if you can’t read your own rant above and understand your view is greatly warped because you have an axe to grind with aviation oversight, then no amount of me or others pointing it out will make one iota of difference. I can’t imagine any ATSB report being produced at the moment where you don’t throw your hands up in the air dramatically and wander off muttering CASA this and CASA that.

As for commercial pressures, I think you’re struggling to grasp the concept. A 200 hour pilot with a CPL and a pushy boss - they have 3x the experience under their belt, they have currency, they have more IF training, they have better theory and human factors awareness. Does that mean they won’t make a mistake? No. But they are better equipped to resist pressures of people and schedules - absolutely.

In my mind, AngelFlight involves private operations where the the possibility of get-there-itis is placed into the shoulders of pilots who don’t normally and who haven’t been trained to recognise and resist those forces. AngelFlight can throw their hands up in the air Helen Lovejoy style about statistics and ATSB has gone to the dogs blah blah blah... or they can suck it up, and invest that energy in training and awareness for their pilots about how to recognise and avoid these things in the future.

Well said:-)

Flying is fun, it can also be incredibly dangerous! The rules are there for YOUR protection, go outside of them then you are in personal test pilot territory!
That saying "a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous" is very real in this tragic event as well as many other "phew that was close" stories that we never hear about!
When we fly whether it be for pleasure or reward we do so full knowing that there is a line in the sand for all of us, cross it at your own peril!

[Sunfish]

"a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous" - is that apparently why there is no PPL spin training?

[maxter]

I wouldn't mind a bet that this was not the first time this pilot has done this. I reckon we all know of VFR pilots that push the boundaries. Some are lucky and scare themselves, get away with it and never do it again. A close friend lucky had room to recover from a spiral before he hit the ground, he was over confident but learnt, another didn't recover and took 2 others with him. Others just never learn, 'escaped once so I must be good' thinking and continue to roll the dice. Better training, absolutely, but currency and attitude a very big part of making pilots safer and for some just they just don't care.

[megan]

I wouldn't mind a bet that this was not the first time this pilot has done thisFrom https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/596429-light-plane-crash-near-mt-gambier-12.html a post by the Father of the Mother killed in the crash, post#223. Bolding mine.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.And His post#225 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"I wonder how He is coping today?

[Lead Balloon]

I wonder what the regulatory response would have been if they’d all died in a crash on the road, the father having finally succumbed to fatigue during one of the 15 hour drives. (Actually, I don’t wonder.)

With hindsight, of course anyone in his or her right mind would avoid a flight during which the pilot is going to make fatal decisions. But it does not follow that avoiding that flight would have guaranteed the passengers’ survival.

How many people die of a condition as a consequence of the impracticalities of road travel to specialists? How many people die during long road trips to specialist appointments? I do not know, precisely, but I do know it’s more than die during Community Service flights.

While ever the answers to these questions are irrelevant to the aviation regulator, it will continue to be expedient for the aviation regulator to shift ever more risk out of sight and out of mind. But make no mistake: there is a cost to society every time the shift happens.

[machtuk]

I fail to see the comparison to road trauma here, they died in a plane crash! They could have stepped off the curb & hit by a bus going to the airport or going to travel by car, it's irrelevant to compare such things??? Everything in life we do is risky but flying is an added risk that in this case was totally avoidable despite what "MIGHT" have happened had they have driven!!!!
Whist CASA/ATSB have poorly handled this report I do believe that a shake up is needed big time!!
These hapless innocent people climbed aboard a plane with a pilot who ought not to have even had a pilots license! Imagine being a family member of the deceased, they would be mortified reading some of the comments here!
I can't even imagine what they still go thru to this day!

[Lead Balloon]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, mach. Could you please use more question and exclamation marks?

”Everything in life we do is risky”. Indeed. Do you now consider that community service flights are risk-free? If they’re not, what should the regulatory response be when there’s another fatal accident in the course of a community service flight?

If community service flights were to be banned, would there be no cost to the community? If there would be no cost, they should be banned.

[Cloudee]

Looks like the senate is going to investigate some of the ATSB conclusions. Hope Angel Flight have got all their ducks in a row and can argue their case well.

https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/senate-committee-to-probe-atsb-over-mount-gambier-report

[megan]

I think the analysis comparing AF flights to RPT availability is amiss. The Father in this case had been driving three round trips to Adelaide from Mount Gambier per week for ten weeks. The cost of a return RPT ticket on Rex varies today between $256.20 and $986.60 depending on ticket type. Assuming the Mother needs to accompany her Daughter, that's $512.40 per trip, $1,537.20 per week using the cheapest ticket option. Who could afford that?

[machtuk]

I think the analysis comparing AF flights to RPT availability is amiss. The Father in this case had been driving three round trips to Adelaide from Mount Gambier per week for ten weeks. The cost of a return RPT ticket on Rex varies today between $256.20 and $986.60 depending on ticket type. Assuming the Mother needs to accompany her Daughter, that's $512.40 per trip, $1,537.20 per week using the cheapest ticket option. Who could afford that?

What "price" do you put on a life? You "Pay" with your life as the last 4 dead people have in these flights!

[Sunfish]

Mach, you are more likely to get killed on the road, but it’s so common nobody makes an issue of it.

[Squawk7700]

Mach, you are more likely to get killed on the road, but it’s so common nobody makes an issue of it.

If you actually believe that Sunfish, you are deeply misguided. (Unless you are referring to RPT)

[VHFRT]

There are at least three daily RPT services from Mount Gambier to Adelaide with fares at stupidly low levels of about $100, so I'm really not sure why there was a need to send a VFR Tobago to do this.

The bigger concern I have is that Angel Flight seem to be able to pull the "oh but we're a charity" line and the public seems to think that means they can pull stuff like this. VFR flights in IFR conditions that are simply not required. Based on my last payslip, I paid about $3000 in income tax in 14 days, so why is there a need for this organisation to even exist?

I have fully read this report and I cannot see the reason for the "outrage" against the ATSB, except for the usual "CASA/ATSB must always be wrong" carry on. It seems to me to be a balanced and factual report that outlines the serious risks with this cowboy operation

[Sunfish]

VHFRT, I fail to understand how you could possibly make the statement that Angel Flight is a “cowboy operation”. Are you deliberately trying to be offensive? Or are you just a pig ignorant troll?

[machtuk]

There are at least three daily RPT services from Mount Gambier to Adelaide with fares at stupidly low levels of about $100, so I'm really not sure why there was a need to send a VFR Tobago to do this.

The bigger concern I have is that Angel Flight seem to be able to pull the "oh but we're a charity" line and the public seems to think that means they can pull stuff like this. VFR flights in IFR conditions that are simply not required. Based on my last payslip, I paid about $3000 in income tax in 14 days, so why is there a need for this organisation to even exist?

I have fully read this report and I cannot see the reason for the "outrage" against the ATSB, except for the usual "CASA/ATSB must always be wrong" carry on. It seems to me to be a balanced and factual report that outlines the serious risks with this cowboy operation

Well said.
I agree although I think we are in the minority here! I'm not a fan of these flights, they should be left to the professionals with say an organisation set up to assist those that have no other option for effective SAFE transport.

[Squawk7700]

Based on my last payslip, I paid about $3000 in income tax in 14 days,

the serious risks with this cowboy operation

We get it. You’re a 737 FO and you earn lots of money (in your mind). Your other half earns nearly as much as you do as a nurse and you’re looking down from your ivory tower at those with terminal illnesses that can least afford so-called $100 airfares. But those airfares to get to their cancer treatments, really cost in total closer to $1000 with taxis and accommodation for 2 included.

Here comes farmer Jo or local successful business owner with his private aircraft who humbly offers his time and aircraft to take these people to their hospital treatments, waits all day at the airport so he can be ready when they want to head straight back rather than wait 5 hours for the next RPT, at his personal time and expense. This is a godsend to those patients, moreso than you could possibly imagine.

Look at it from the other side of the fence and remember your roots, unless of course you came from one of those big city sausage factories.

[Lead Balloon]

What "price" do you put on a life? You "Pay" with your life as the last 4 dead people have in these flights!
It therefore follows that all aviation activity should be banned. If a life is priceless, no aviation risk is worth taking.

[Sunfish]

I spent two years ferrying my wife to hospital by car at least once a week. That was for breast cancer; chemo, surgery, radiation therapy, reconstruction, the lot. I think I can therefore speak with a little authority on this subject.

The car trip was three hours plus each way. We were lucky in that various children had spare rooms and we could afford hotels when necessary. At one stage we lived in an apartment for a month.

The overall time involved - for us was usually three days per appointment because specialists appointments cannot always fit your travel schedule. It’s one day down, then a day with the doctors and back the following day, we occasionally managed it in two days because one was not enough - six hours driving plus doctors plus peak hour traffic is a nightmare.

For Two years this was pretty much a full time job - and we were only 250kms, about three hours from Melbourne. There was barely time to look after the property between visits.

For someone living more than four hours drive away, without the financial resources we had, say trying to hold down a job or run a business, services like Angel Flight at least make treatment possible. I often wonder if the rural suicide epidemic is in part caused by the near impossibility of getting treatment, both medical and psychiatric in the bush.

The ATSB in full Marie Antoinette mode, reckons that regular airline services are a sufficient substitute, well they aren’t. Your turn around time at a city airport is at least three hours leaving and probably at least two hours arriving, plus taxis since you left your car at home, plus lots and lots of accommodation because the idea that RPT schedules and doctors appointments are ever going to synchronise is laughable. Then there is the airfare itself, perhaps airport parking, the drive to and from your nearest airport (which might also be three hours from home) not to mention the anxiety about trying to get tickets on what might be a full aircraft or changing flights at the last minute due to medical complications, not to mention the possibility of requiring treatment or special services. And this all assumes your patient is fully ambulatory to handle those half a km walks to arrival and departure. So no, the ATSB is just plain wrong.

As for “Cowboys” Angel Flight said it best; CASA trained and licensed each pilot involved and certified their aircraft. If Angel Flights are conducted by unsafe cowboys, then so is every private flight.

[Squawk7700]

I sometimes have the shear thrill of flying Qantas, Virgin, Jetstar or Tiger between capital cities. It really is not a fun experience as you drag through those dreadful terminals, queue for check-in and security, walk km’s to/from car parks, escalators and so on. It’s a challenge for a healthy person. Then find yourself squashed next to to some great overweight unwashed buff head with a massive bag that some how is forced into the locker and who just has park his elbow in your ribs. I often think how awful that would be for AngelFlight folks, many of whom would need a to find a wheelchair or maybe in they're in middle of some unpleasant cancer treatment or perhaps trying to look after a sick, fractious child. The Angel Flight approach is seemless. Pilot hands over to Earth Angel, car might even be right next to the plane. There’s a friendly face with them all the way and they’re not dumped in one of those impersonal hostile concrete jungles.

Angel Flight is so much more than just flying. I do hope they get that bit sorted because they do a wonderful job.

Well said and therein lies many of the reasons for which they exist.

[Sunfish]

There is a post above that questions what the regulator would do about road fatalities.

They (the government) would probably work out the statistics, raise awareness about the risks and what individuals should do to mitigate them, and identify particular black spots and change those.

Not dissimilar to what they have done here.

The difference is there are less likely to be a bunch or morons who argue against the recommendations.





Using your analogy, the ATSB stated: “it’s too dangerous to drive you to hospital in a private car; you must either travel in an ambulance or bus”. Thus making an unfounded and idiotic alleged link between the purpose and importance of a journey with its intrinsic safety.

I already raised this issue. Pity you did.

[john_tullamarine]

Those of us who have had a short experience of the sort of longer term situation Sunfish described can only thank our lucky stars that we were fortunate enough to avoid the long term dramas of remote medical treatment. How much more dreadful must be the experience when the timeframe is far longer ?

Perhaps those who have had no exposure at all are not in a very strong position to advocate on the philosophical rights and wrongs of things ? Something about walking a mile in their moccasins, perhaps ?

As to PIC command decision calls, it is very easy for those of us with significant flying experience VFR/IFR to suggest what we might do in the light of that historical experience, given a particular situation. More importantly, we have the benefit of all those frights to which we subjected ourselves while acquiring the experience ...

Perhaps folks might cast their minds back to their time during that high-risk 100-500 hours period. Does the fact that Pilot A kills himself while Pilot B doesn't, mean that Pilot A is a lesser pilot ? Perhaps more that Pilot B might have been just a little bit luckier. I recall a double fatality in the Blue Mountains many years ago - one of the young chaps was the son of a childhood friend. The two of them, apparently, survived the prang but succumbed to injuries subsequently. Probably not in the same valley, with the same lowering cloud base but, quite some years earlier at a similar experience level, I very nearly came unstuck in a very similar manner - on that occasion, I was lucky. Come to think of it, on many occasions, I was lucky .. until I wised up a bit.

Perhaps the emphasis ought to be not on castigation but, rather, lift the bar on basic pilot training to give the new chums some supervised exposure so that they can have a few programmed frights with a better controlled risk ?

[Ironpot]

Well said and therein lies many of the reasons for which they exist.

+1 Great post

[junior.VH-LFA]

Stop making excuses. Launching VFR into literally below IFR minima weather is not excusable or defendable in any way. He TOOK OFF into it.

The Angel Flight discussion is another topic within. But don't justify the pilots culpability.

[VHFRT]

You’ve really got to laugh at the mentality of people in this country sometimes. The point I’m trying to make is that this operation simply should not exist. We pay massively high income tax rates in this country, so why do these poor people with health issues need to wait for some VFR pilot to come blasting through IMC conditions to take them to medical appointments. This is what we pay our taxes for. Rather than supporting this sort of cowboy operation (missions and heros at the ATSB pointed out) we should be attacking our local members for not providing appropriate services to our sick population.

Yet of course, in true Australian tall poppy syndrome, people attack me and my RN wife who give away huge amounts of money in tax to support the population. Of course, as we work our arses off to pay taxes, we are the problem.

[Sunfish]

You’ve really got to laugh at the mentality of people in this country sometimes. The point I’m trying to make is that this operation simply should not exist. We pay massively high income tax rates in this country, so why do these poor people with health issues need to wait for some VFR pilot to come blasting through IMC conditions to take them to medical appointments. This is what we pay our taxes for. Rather than supporting this sort of cowboy operation (missions and heros at the ATSB pointed out) we should be attacking our local members for not providing appropriate services to our sick population.

Yet of course, in true Australian tall poppy syndrome, people attack me and my RN wife who give away huge amounts of money in tax to support the population. Of course, as we work our arses off to pay taxes, we are the problem.


Presumably you also have contempt for amateur firefighters like me and the rest of the CFA? You are an idiot for thinking that your taxes can possibly compensate for the amount of voluntary labor that keeps this country running.

VHFRT, you can join the French aristocracy along with ATSB; ‘let them eat cake” now piss off and have another latte. You don’t live in the real Australia.

[Sunfish]

Stop making excuses. Launching VFR into literally below IFR minima weather is not excusable or defendable in any way. He TOOK OFF into it.

The Angel Flight discussion is another topic within. But don't justify the pilots culpability.

Agreed. What do you want Angel Flight to do? Get them to sign a statement that they won’t be idiots?

[VHFRT]

Presumably you also have contempt for amateur firefighters like me and the rest of the CFA? You are an idiot for thinking that your taxes can possibly compensate for the amount of voluntary labor that keeps this country running.

VHFRT, you can join the French aristocracy along with ATSB; ‘let them eat cake” now piss off and have another latte. You don’t live in the real Australia.

Actually I do live in the real Australia. If you have an issue, speak to your MP and have your taxes redirected to where they are needed. These people should not need to suffer because there is no genuine public service to support them. I spent my 18th May handing out how to vote cards to support an increase in government funded services. Outsourcing these services to an unregulated “charity” is not the answer.

I will happily say that I do not support “charities” circumventing regulations to put peoples lives at risk. Innocent people have been killed because a “charity” sent a VFR pilot to operate into fog so severe that the RPT Service held on the ground.

[BigPapi]

I must have missed the part in the report where AF FORCED this guy to blast off into IMC. Must have been a gun to his head or something.

[Sunfish]

VHFRT......An increase in Government funded (meaning “professionally” administered and delivered by public servants) Shirley you must be joking??

VHFRT, if you care to read the press, you will discover, as the rest of Australia already knows, that the Government has made a complete mess of NDIS - The National Disability Insurance Scheme. Add to that the NBN, which has failed spectacularly to provide adequate broadband services to regional Australia. Despite being well meaning, you are obviously totally out of touch.

How could you possibly think that a Government instrumentality could do a better job of providing targeted services to Australians in need than a lean, focussed, voluntary organisation? For example, the Victorian CFA has about 35,000 members, not including family backups, there is no way in hell that government can replicate that service at anything approaching reasonable cost, then there is RFDS and a host of other voluntary organisations. What is wrong with using Angel Flight? Hell, it’s our country, not the governments! If we want to do things ourselves then we will.

Are you a member of the Canberra Louis XIV aristocracy? They are the only group who think more government is the solution to everything.

[YPJT]

Innocent people have been killed because a “charity” sent a VFR pilot to operate into fog so severe that the RPT Service held on the ground.
You absolute ******. AF in no way "sent" that pilot anywhere. He made that decision on his own.

[Squawk7700]

Don’t feed the troll! There’s always one. He’s wearing rose coloured glasses from the lofty heights of the right seat of a 737 and can’t see the 172’s below that keep GA and the airlines running.

[Ironpot]

Don’t feed the troll! There’s always one. He’s wearing rose coloured glasses from the lofty heights of the right seat of a 737 and can’t see the 172’s below that keep GA and the airlines running.


I very much doubt that he is a pilot - no understanding. As you say... simply a troll.

[rammel]

I think most here acknowledge that the pilot stuffed up, but I have genuine questions as I only know the bare minimum about Angel Flight.

1. How many flights a day or week would the operate?

2. Is there anyone at Angel Flight who monitors these flights for weather etc. and communicates this with the pilot the day before or day of the flight? And will reccomend or advise that the flight should / will not take place?

[Lookleft]

If the doomsday merchants like Sunfish are to be believed the days of the 172 keeping GA and the airlines running (big leap of logic there), are severely limited. Its a very Australian trait to howl and tear down someone just because they don't follow the herd in their ideas. The people occupying the lofty heights of the RHS of a 737 have all been through the refining process of having to make decisions whether to operate or not in marginal conditions The questions being asked by rammel are very good questions. Who does keep an eye on these pilots? Just because AF doesn't have AOC, don't employ pilots or operate aircraft doesn't mean they don't have any responsibility to the people that are being transported. Do the people availing themselves of the service really understand that the pilot is the equivalent of a kindly stranger taking them in their own transport to the hospital? Maybe AF needs to be the provider of the education program to ensure that the weather decision making process, that has been flawed in 2 fatal accidents being operated under their banner, is better understood by pilots with varying experience levels.

[Squawk7700]

Its a very Australian trait to howl and tear down someone just because they don't follow the herd in their ideas.

I think it was more the point that the poster believed that because they pay so much tax, that the government should pay for all of this. Same with CFA, SES and other volunteer organisations no doubt in their mind.

[Lookleft]

Then argue that point but when this is directed at them "VHFRT, you can join the French aristocracy along with ATSB; ‘let them eat cake” now piss off and have another latte. You don’t live in the real Australia. and this Are you a member of the Canberra Louis XIV aristocracy? They are the only group who think more government is the solution to everything. then my statement Its a very Australian trait to howl and tear down someone just because they don't follow the herd in their ideas. is valid. I don't agree with FRT's assessment of AF but the point he is making is that the Government should be funding better regional health services so that people in regional areas should only have to drive into town to get 1st class medical and mental health treatment

[Lead Balloon]

[W]ho monitors these flights for weather etc. and communicates this with the pilot the day before or day of the flight? And will reccomend or advise that the flight should / will not take place?Who “monitors” the weather etc for any private flight? Who gives a private pilot “advice” that a proposed flight should or should not take place?

You do not understand what Angel Flight is and does.

[rammel]

As I stated, I only know the bare minimum about AF. I'm assuming that there is some central point that the flights are arranged through and if this is the case, what monitoring is done of these flights?

I know that they are private flights, but they are being arranged by a third party. All I'm asking is, does AF ask if pilots are familiar with the area they are operating from/to and discuss the flight ahead?

While I know that pilots can cancel the flight, I'm also aware of the perceived pressure on the pilot to help out a family with a sick child.

[Lookleft]

To say that AF is just like any other private category flight is like saying Uber is just like getting a lift from a stranger. The fact that it is a charity does not absolve it from a responsibility to the "patients" for want of a better word. If there is no direct oversight then have mentor pilots to the low experience PPLs. who they can call on to help come to a reasoned decision to fly or not. The statement that the PIC can simply say no is as pointless as simply stating don't fly from VMC into IMC. It ignores all sorts of self-imposed pressures that a single pilot low time VFR pilot might place upon themselves. Rammel is asking the questions that the patients and there families would probably ask if they knew their pilot did not have much flying experience.

[Sunfish]

lookleft makes a good point. A mentoring program might be a good idea. My point about VHFRT is that he thinks the government can run a better program than Angel Flight - experience suggests not. As for the French aristocracy reference, it alludes to the fact that ATSB is totally out of touch with the ordinary day to day basics of dealing with severe illness.

As for your reference to uber, they were greeted like a breath of fresh air in melbourne. no more scummy barely roadworthy dirty taxis, no more illiterate unkempt idiotic taxi drivers who couldn’t drive at all. I’ve walked away from 2 taxi crashes caused by taxi drivers lack of knowledge of the laws of physics. Uber is way better.

As for the two AF fatalities, if they were statistically significant ATSB would have howled it from the rooftops. They couldn’t and instead invented a so called analysis that “proved” what their masters wanted to hear.

Im starting to get the distinct impression that GA and private pilots are under attack. From greedy councils, from the RAAF and their buddies in RPT who don’t want to share airspace with anyone and of course the regulator. You form a nice little club.

[Lead Balloon]

To say that AF is just like any other private category flight is like saying Uber is just like getting a lift from a stranger. The fact that it is a charity does not absolve it from a responsibility to the "patients" for want of a better word. If there is no direct oversight then have mentor pilots to the low experience PPLs. who they can call on to help come to a reasoned decision to fly or not. The statement that the PIC can simply say no is as pointless as simply stating don't fly from VMC into IMC. It ignores all sorts of self-imposed pressures that a single pilot low time VFR pilot might place upon themselves. Rammel is asking the questions that the patients and there families would probably ask if they knew their pilot did not have much flying experience.
Uber drivers are paid to do the job. They make money out of it.

And guess what happens when the Angel Flight passenger/s arrive at their destination? They get in a car driven by a stranger. Perhaps Angel Flight are “responsible” for monitoring road conditions and asking for an alcohol and drug test of the volunteer driver and a copy of a recent roadworthiness certificate for the car before each volunteer helps out?

If the accidents that triggered the rule change were caused by the inexperience of the individual pilots involved, why weren’t the rules changed so as to preclude pilots with their level experience from now being community service flight pilots?

[blackburn]

Something like the question posed in post 97 (2) was suggested to Angel Flight back in March when the CASA was putting their new rules on CSF in place.
Angel Flight replied that "We tried to institute a ‘duty pilot’ concept (CHIEF Pilot/CASA examiner etc) but could not because no insurer would cover that role"
Couldn't really see why a mentor could be an insurance problem. Maybe there is a CASA rule about mentors!!
Gliding Clubs have duty pilots and they are private OPS!

[Lookleft]

So how many accidents in AF road vehicles have resulted in the fatality of the patient and their accompanying family members? Maybe they have a better safety record than the air component. You have been arguing that there should be no change as it is simply a private operation and that no regulation will make it safer. So every time there is a fatal accident you are suggesting that everyone just has a collective shrug of the shoulders and move on. The rules aren't perfect and neither is AF but improvements can always be made.

[Lead Balloon]

No I’m not suggesting that at all, LL.

What I’m suggesting is that the response mitigate the actual cause of the accidents, rather than be the usual knee jerk rule change. Whilst it may seem a surprise to many Australians - and especially the complicators in CASA - the real solution to many problems is not more laws and more restrictions.

CASA has a safety promotion function. The risk of VFR flight into IMC, in breach of the law, is well known. The problem of ‘gethereitis’ is well known. Perhaps CASA should do its safety promotion job better.

Perhaps it should be less complicated to get IFR qualifications.

Perhaps it should be easier for private VFR pilots with thousands of hours in the logbook to get instructor ratings.

I talked about this earlier in the thread.

How many accidents have there been in community service road vehicles? You tell me! That’s part of the chronic problem of aviation ‘standards’ setting.

[YPJT]

So how many accidents in AF road vehicles have resulted in the fatality of the patient and their accompanying family members? Maybe they have a better safety record than the air component. You have been arguing that there should be no change as it is simply a private operation and that no regulation will make it safer. So every time there is a fatal accident you are suggesting that everyone just has a collective shrug of the shoulders and move on. The rules aren't perfect and neither is AF but improvements can always be made
As an AF pilot of quite a few flights. I would have no problem with improvements involving education, proficiency checking or anything else that takes any perceived pressure off pilots and more importantly goes to make sure this sort of tragedy never happens again.

[machtuk]

Then argue that point but when this is directed at them and this then my statement is valid. I don't agree with FRT's assessment of AF but the point he is making is that the Government should be funding better regional health services so that people in regional areas should only have to drive into town to get 1st class medical and mental health treatment

I wouldn't get too excited there, sadly a few in here thrive on personal attacks of others that don't subscribe to their beliefs as well as insults, such is the ugliness that PPRuNe produces on an individual basis!
I've been involved in a few industries during my almost 50 year working life & aviation has the worst of them all!

4 innocent people lost their lives leaving untold misery for those left behind (and some are bitching here!), they had zero choice, 2 did have a choice, who's next? That's the ugly reality of all this!

[Lookleft]

How many accidents have there been in community service road vehicles? You tell me! That’s part of the chronic problem of aviation ‘standards’ setting. No idea either but you thought it was relevant. CASA used to run a day long seminar on the topic of VFR into IMC. It was well received and copied as a format in Canada. I remember going to one where the solution proffered by the assembled pilots was that if the VFR pilot only had an instrument rating then the accident would not have happened. The problem with that thinking is that having an Instrument Rating just makes your decisions different not better. So if an individual's decision making process is flawed then having an instrument rating will merely delay the inevitable.

YPJT by your post you sound like someone who is always looking at ways to improve your craft. I hope AF is able to facilitate that process.

[junior.VH-LFA]

A flight authorisation style process with an experienced qualified pilot would have prevented this.

[Lead Balloon]

How?

The pilots involved were “experienced” and “qualified”.

[aroa]

All a bit hypothetical isnt it.? A newly minted and some not so recent CPLs do go out and do stupid things , make bad decisions and kill people ...just like a PPL or a AF PPL, who according to ATSB, is SEVEN times more likely., ? Que ?
Some people are brash, some folk are timid, some are Darwinian and exit the gene pool and others survive.
Tragic tho it is for the AF pax, the deaths of pax in CHTR and other PVT flight are also of equal import. RIP the lot.

[Bull at a Gate]

The report notes that Angel Flight pay the pilot’s expenses, including fuel, and that on the day that the crash occurred there were commercial flights available which would have cost Angel Flight less had they simply booked seats on the commercial flights. Would that not have saved a few lives here?

[Lead Balloon]

If you presume that all assertions of fact in ATSB reports are completely true, I’d urge you to test that presumption.

Even if the availability of an alternative RPT flight were true for one day, lots of people with recurring treatment/testing requirements have schedules that don’t neatly map a constant 5 day RPT schedule.

[andrewr]

As for the two AF fatalities, if they were statistically significant ATSB would have howled it from the rooftops.

You keep saying that, but they did find it was statistically significant. There are about 40 pages of analysis in the report. For better or worse, someone picked out one easily understandable number to put in the media release rather than the 40 pages of analysis.

They didn't just analyze 2 flights, they compared 13,389 angel flights with 2 fatal accidents and 3,527,079 private flights with 72 fatal accidents. If you want to argue statistical significance the numbers are there - do the maths or consult a statistician and tell us what you come up with.

If you want to argue statistical significance, you also need to decide what confidence you are looking for. Statistical significance is a measure of how likely the result is to have occurred by chance, versus having occurred due to a real difference.

If you are asking whether Angel Flight need to improve safety, you might settle for a lower level of confidence than if you e.g. were introducing a new medical treatment.

How sure would you need to be that Angel Flight has a higher accident rate before you tried to improve safety?
80% sure? 90%? 95%? 95% is a common level to be considered significant but it's probably low if you are evaluating medical treatment and probably too high if you are worried about a safety problem.

[maxter]

You’ve really got to laugh at the mentality of people in this country sometimes. The point I’m trying to make is that this operation simply should not exist. We pay massively high income tax rates in this country, so why do these poor people with health issues need to wait for some VFR pilot to come blasting through IMC conditions to take them to medical appointments. This is what we pay our taxes for. Rather than supporting this sort of cowboy operation (missions and heros at the ATSB pointed out) we should be attacking our local members for not providing appropriate services to our sick population.

Yet of course, in true Australian tall poppy syndrome, people attack me and my RN wife who give away huge amounts of money in tax to support the population. Of course, as we work our arses off to pay taxes, we are the problem.

This has zero to do with 'tall poppy' and a lot to do about what it takes for those in the country areas to access what many of us take for granted. To many services such as 'Angel Flight' mean the difference between getting treatment or not. Not everyone can skite about how much tax they pay.
Many of those using AF are more concerned how they will pay the next power bill and groceries. Spent many years in the bush and know what many go through. Suspect you have zero idea of life in the bush if you think regional RPT is easy or affordable. Hint here, AF does not only fly from Mt Gambier. How about Windorah or Winton in Qld. Great RPT there.
I will agree we could be a much more compassionate country and support those who are less well off but that will never happen while we have governments elected by greed and self interest, so AF etc is the result and only silver lining for many.
Can it be better, of course. we cannot have pilots deliberately flying into IFR when VFR rated doing AF. Akin to murder in my mind. What is the vetting system? Who actually knows those who take these stupid risks but say nothing?

[Old Akro]

The report notes that Angel Flight pay the pilot’s expenses, including fuel, and that on the day that the crash occurred there were commercial flights available which would have cost Angel Flight less had they simply booked seats on the commercial flights. Would that not have saved a few lives here?

Seriously?

Firstly, Angel Flights primarily exist because Australia has run down our regional health system to the point that most people with serious chronic disease must travel to capital cities. If we had a health system that treated the regions better, Angel flight would not exist.

Secondly, Angel flight does not pay any pilot expenses. Angel flight pays an amount for fuel which may or may not cover the entire cost (depending on aircraft). The airports waive landing fees and AsA waives airnav charges. The pilot bears the operating cost of the aircraft his / her time and any incidental expenses. In my case, this sometimes includes staying somewhere the night before at my expense to be ready for an early flight.

Thirdly, Angel Flight helps people by providing transport:
a) when they cant afford it (remember some people travel monthly or occasionally more often to medical review)
b) Angel flight provides transport not only for the person with the medical condition, but also support people. For kids this is typically 2 other people - the equivalent airline cost starts to climb!
c) Angel flight provides transport for people (eg young kids) who require more baggage than is welcome on RPT. This can include prams, car seats, & multiple bags, crutches, wheel chairs etc. Typically GA flights allow the ground transport to get very close to the aircraft minimising walking distance,
d) For patients who are immuno suppressed (eg Chemotherapy) travelling in crowded RPT aircraft cabins can be a significant risk of infection. For these people, a GA aircraft on their own is a much lower risk of infection.

What would have saved lives here was an instrument rated pilot ( why is Australia's rate of instrument pilots so low? Why does CASA make it so difficult / expensive?) or a VFR pilot with better weather judgement.

The VH-YTM accident investigation should be treated as just that and not a persecution of Angel Flight. The accident is no more or less tragic with Angel Flight passengers than if it was friends of the pilot. It can just be whipped into a more emotional event by those wanting to politically point-score.

Lets look at what is going wrong that these types of accidents are still occurring after 50 years or more of "education" by CASA and its predecessors.

[maxter]

Actually I do live in the real Australia. If you have an issue, speak to your MP and have your taxes redirected to where they are needed. These people should not need to suffer because there is no genuine public service to support them. I spent my 18th May handing out how to vote cards to support an increase in government funded services. Outsourcing these services to an unregulated “charity” is not the answer.

I will happily say that I do not support “charities” circumventing regulations to put peoples lives at risk. Innocent people have been killed because a “charity” sent a VFR pilot to operate into fog so severe that the RPT Service held on the ground.




That is the most idiotic post ever. How can you accuse AF of sending aa VFR pilot into fog. You have zero credibility when you make such bizarre statements. AF do not order any pilot to exceed their rating or even their comfort zone.

[Old Akro]

AF do not order any pilot to exceed their rating or even their comfort zone.

Hear! Hear!

In ny experience AF actively encourage the pilot NOT to push his / her comfort zone

[Lead Balloon]

You keep saying that, but they did find it was statistically significant. There are about 40 pages of analysis in the report. For better or worse, someone picked out one easily understandable number to put in the media release rather than the 40 pages of analysis.

They didn't just analyze 2 flights, they compared 13,389 angel flights with 2 fatal accidents and 3,527,079 private flights with 72 fatal accidents. If you want to argue statistical significance the numbers are there - do the maths or consult a statistician and tell us what you come up with.

If you want to argue statistical significance, you also need to decide what confidence you are looking for. Statistical significance is a measure of how likely the result is to have occurred by chance, versus having occurred due to a real difference.

If you are asking whether Angel Flight need to improve safety, you might settle for a lower level of confidence than if you e.g. were introducing a new medical treatment.

How sure would you need to be that Angel Flight has a higher accident rate before you tried to improve safety?
80% sure? 90%? 95%? 95% is a common level to be considered significant but it's probably low if you are evaluating medical treatment and probably too high if you are worried about a safety problem.
Did you read Angel Flight’s response to the ATSB’s analysis, printed in The Australian last week? Be worth your while, if you’re interested in facts.

[Sunfish]

AndrewR, there is only one statistic that counts. The rate of VFR into IMC accidents per thousand hours flying or per cycle of Angel Flight vs. private ops and charter and airlines. That statistic didn’t show Angel Flight was anymore or less dangerous than normal GA ops.

......So ATSB invented a new one: the alleged rate of safety “occurrences” which did - making the startling claim AF was seven times more dangerous, which is utter lying, cheating bull****.

To put it another way, it’s as if you stated that all Volvo drivers were dangerous compared to others because they had a higher rate of parking fines.

[Lead Balloon]

Come now, Sunfish.

You know perfectly well that birds know when an aircraft is engaged in a community service flight. Birds deliberately flock to pose a risk specific to those flights.

But both ATSB and CASA failed to identify the most important and telling statistic: The pilots of nearly 100% of the community service flight aircraft involved in an ‘occurrence’ were male!

[andrewr]

Did you read Angel Flight’s response to the ATSB’s analysis, printed in The Australian last week? Be worth your while, if you’re interested in facts.

As pasted earlier in this thread? I did. Have you read the full report?

Angel Flight complained that only the passenger carrying legs were included in the statistics, however the report is basically investigating the risk to Angel Flight passengers so that is 100% valid - there is no risk to passengers on legs where they are not present. The hypothesis is "That Angel Flights carrying passengers have a higher risk of a fatal accident than other private flights" so Angel Flight legs with passengers is the correct group to test.

They said they engaged their own statistician who found the numbers were not significant. However they don't tell you the number or tests they used, or their threshold for significance. We have dueling statisticians, but only the ATSB presented their data and methodologies. There's nothing there in the Angel flight information that you can use to evaluate it (and people are accusing the ATSB of hiding data - by putting it into a report people can't be bothered reading presumably).

They also complain about the use of occurrence data. I haven't looked deeply into that because the fatal accidents concern me more. My main impression from the occurrence data was that the pilots involved seemed to be operating in unfamiliar environments, which you might expect to raise stress and make poor decisions more likely. If Angel Flight want to focus on the fatal accidents only that's fine with me.

[andrewr]

AndrewR, there is only one statistic that counts. The rate of VFR into IMC accidents per thousand hours flying or per cycle of Angel Flight vs. private ops and charter and airlines. That statistic didn’t show Angel Flight was anymore or less dangerous than normal GA ops.

They used rate of fatal accidents instead of VFR into IMC. Restricting it to VFR into IMC would include all Angel Flight but not all private accidents, so would look even worse for Angel Flight. I'm sure someone can do that statistic if you want it.

The statistic DID show angel flight was more dangerous than normal private flights. From the report, the probability that passenger carrying Angel Flight fatal accident rate is greater than other private flights: 96.8%.

And for Angel flight, who are claiming that non-passenger flight were excluded, that number is there too: the probability that the combined flights Angel Flight fatal accident rate is greater than other private flights: 82%

ATSB produced the statistics. The numbers and methodologies are documented. If you want to dispute the methodologies and produce your own numbers feel free - that is why it is important that the information is published. But you can't claim that ATSB didn't produce the numbers. If you do your own calculations, you should publish the workings as well so that people can see how you came to a conclusion.

[andrewr]

But both ATSB and CASA failed to identify the most important and telling statistic: The pilots of nearly 100% of the community service flight aircraft involved in an ‘occurrence’ were male!


Fatal accident rates of male vs. female pilots might not be a statistic you want to see!

[Lead Balloon]

Let’s assume that the ATSB’s analysis is correct and your impressions are correct.

What is it in CASA’s response - the imposition of conditions on flight crew licences - that causally mitigates the risk of community service flight pilots being more likely to make decisions that result in fatal accidents? Which of those conditions would have prevented fatalities?

And why wouldn’t we want to see the statistics of male v female fatal accident rate? Surely there should be a regulatory response to the disparity. After all, there must be a causal connection, not mere correlation.

[Sunfish]

As others have said, “a little statistical knowledge is a dangerous thing”.

The occurrence data is irrelevant. Your argument about stress in unfamiliar environments is correct from my experience, I’ve been caught that way myself.

However that argument fails statistically because you would need to compare AF to other GA flights operating in unfamiliar airports, which ATSB could not do. Furthermore that issue can be fixed by training and mentoring anyway. In any case the AF accidents were not caused by unfamiliar airports.

Then you raise “passenger carrying”, you would again need to compare AF with GA flights carrying passengers from A to B, not just tootling around the circuit on a sunny day or doing a local scenic flight.

However, even without those tests, the basic poisson and normal distribution tests for the accident rates can’t produce significant results or ATSB would have trumpeted them.

What that means is that we DON’T KNOW if the two crashes are anything more than coincidence.

The same argument unfortunately applies to the RPT fatality rate in Australia. We cannot crow about how safe we are because the data is “lumpy”. You could go 40 years without an accident, then lose 500+ in a mid air over Sydney. If that ever happened, you can bet that the ATSB would be calling it an “isolated incident “ - statistically insignificant, random, etc. etc. They should afford the same latitude to Angel Flight.

[outnabout]

I bet there is an added layer of regulations for Angel Flights because some idiot exceeded his skills and his confidence by flying into IMC.

CASA are trying to regulate against stupidity. And because pilots keep on doing stupid things (like flying into IMC when not trained or qualified) then CASA will always have a reason to tighten the noose.

The pilot in command failed to act responsibily, safely, or even within his (limited) competency.

And we will all have to suffer increased regulations and oversight as a result.

[Old Akro]

I bet there is an added layer of regulations for Angel Flights because some idiot exceeded his skills and his confidence by flying into IMC.

The experience & currency requirements for Angel Flight pilots is already higher than that required for single engine VFR charter pilots (ie most tourist flights).

CASA just don't like non-airline operations carrying passengers. They like dealing with large organisations with airconditioned meeting rooms and tea lady's. Full stop.

[andrewr]

However that argument fails statistically because you would need to compare AF to other GA flights operating in unfamiliar airports, which ATSB could not do. Furthermore that issue can be fixed by training and mentoring anyway. In any case the AF accidents were not caused by unfamiliar airports.

Then you raise “passenger carrying”, you would again need to compare AF with GA flights carrying passengers from A to B, not just tootling around the circuit on a sunny day or doing a local scenic flight.


You are suggesting that private GA has a higher accident rate for passenger carrying flights than non passenger carrying? It's certainly possible, the numbers would be interesting.

What you compare depends on the question you are trying to answer. It seems likely there was an expectation that the level of Angel Flight safety could be predicted by looking at the private GA accident rate. In that case you need to compare with the group you used to make the prediction.

However, even without those tests, the basic poisson and normal distribution tests for the accident rates can’t produce significant results or ATSB would have trumpeted them.


You really need to read the report. The data is there, even if it hasn't been trumpeted to your satisfaction.

What that means is that we DON’T KNOW if the two crashes are anything more than coincidence.

The same argument unfortunately applies to the RPT fatality rate in Australia. We cannot crow about how safe we are because the data is “lumpy”. You could go 40 years without an accident, then lose 500+ in a mid air over Sydney. If that ever happened, you can bet that the ATSB would be calling it an “isolated incident “ - statistically insignificant, random, etc. etc. They should afford the same latitude to Angel Flight.

One might be an isolated incident. 2 is more significant, if the expected rate is low. ATSB provide the numbers you can do the maths yourself if you want to. No need to speculate about hypothetical RPT accidents.

Don't get me wrong - I actually support the concept of Angel Flight. However, it appears they have a problem. One more similar accident and they are finished, I reckon. Denying the problem won't help them - they need to figure out how to stop it from happening again.

[Lead Balloon]

Let’s just save everyone the time and effort. Ban it now! It appears they have a problem. 2 incidents. Count them: 2!

Shut this **** down, now.

[andrewr]

What is it in CASA’s response - the imposition of conditions on flight crew licences - that causally mitigates the risk of community service flight pilots being more likely to make decisions that result in fatal accidents? Which of those conditions would have prevented fatalities?


I would say that nothing in CASA's response will make any difference.

Pilots have been making bad decisions since before the Wright brothers, and will continue to make bad decisions until they are completely replaced by computers. We know how to mitigate that.

Have standards and procedures that keep pilots away from areas where a bad decision will be catastrophic.
Have someone e.g. Chief Pilot, business owner etc. who will be on the hook if something does go wrong so they will be looking over the pilots shoulder, second guessing them etc (supervising) at least until they are satisfied with their decision making.

Angel Flight does not do that - they place all responsibility on the pilot.

Angel flight needs to work out how to reliably cancel flights when the weather is unsuitable. We know from 100 years of experience that you can't 100% rely on the pilot for this. Angel Flight are not going to change that, even with a web education module.

What I believe they need to do:

Set conservative standards for day VFR flights, e.g. ETA no later than 1 hour before last light, cancel the flight if destination requires an alternate etc.
The pilot phones Angel Flight before taking off, Angel Flight have the weather for the flight plus a report and ETA information from the pilot, and Angel Flight cancel if the weather is not up to standard.

These procedures would have almost certainly have meant that both accident flights would have been cancelled and Angel Flight would have an excellent safety record, instead of what is currently a very poor one.

I suspect Angel Flight resist this because inserting themselves in the decision making creates a liability problem. Perhaps they wouldn't be able to get insurance at all. It would be ironic, but not surprising, if insurance was preventing an improvement in safety.

No commercial pilot, not even the most experienced A380 captain, operates with the autonomy given to Angel Flight pilots.

[Sunfish]

AndrewR: Pilots have been making bad decisions since before the Wright brothers, and will continue to make bad decisions until they are completely replaced by computers. We know how to mitigate that.
Have standards and procedures that keep pilots away from areas where a bad decision will be catastrophic.
Have someone e.g. Chief Pilot, business owner etc. who will be on the hook if something does go wrong so they will be looking over the pilots shoulder, second guessing them etc (supervising) at least until they are satisfied with their decision making.
Angel Flight does not do that - they place all responsibility on the pilot.

Angel flight needs to work out how to reliably cancel flights when the weather is unsuitable. We know from 100 years of experience that you can't 100% rely on the pilot for this. Angel Flight are not going to change that, even with a web education module.

What I believe they need to do:
Set conservative standards for day VFR flights, e.g. ETA no later than 1 hour before last light, cancel the flight if destination requires an alternate etc.
The pilot phones Angel Flight before taking off, Angel Flight have the weather for the flight plus a report and ETA information from the pilot, and Angel Flight cancel if the weather is not up to standard.
These procedures would have almost certainly have meant that both accident flights would have been cancelled and Angel Flight would have an excellent safety record, instead of what is currently a very poor one.

I suspect Angel Flight resist this because inserting themselves in the decision making creates a liability problem. Perhaps they wouldn't be able to get insurance at all. It would be ironic, but not surprising, if insurance was preventing an improvement in safety.

No commercial pilot, not even the most experienced A380 captain, operates with the autonomy given to Angel Flight pilots.




Congratulations! You trolled me! You aren’t a pilot and you still don’t understand statistics.

[andrewr]

You aren’t a pilot

Why do you say that? Because real pilots believe you can eliminate VFR into IMC accidents if only you do enough education?

and you still don’t understand statistics.

Maybe, but I think in this case we are trying to answer different questions with the statistics.

You are asking whether Angel Flight itself increases the danger of the operation. Yes, that question requires you to find the most similar private flights (or at least control for the differences). That would probably be not just private flights with passengers, but private flights with passengers where there were specific plans to be somewhere. And if you are that specific there might be no difference. There are plenty of examples of regular private VFR flights into IMC under those circumstances e.g. VH PXD. But is it useful to compare Angel Flight with some of the more dangerous private flights?

Why compare with other private flights at all? What we want to do is to understand the risk associated with the flights. The comparison with private flights suggests that private flights overall are not an accurate reflection of the risk of Angel Flight - which I think is the same as what you are saying, but approached from the opposite direction.

Other questions you could try to answer with statistics:

Is Angel Flight more dangerous than private flights (the original statement)
Is Angel Flight more dangerous than private flights carrying passengers
Is Angel Flight more dangerous than charter
Is Angel Flight more dangerous than RPT
Is the Space Shuttle more dangerous than Angel Flight (just to show that yes, you probably can draw valid conclusions based on only 2 accidents)

For each you select the data that best reflects what you want to compare, not the subset where the 2 groups are most similar.

Have YOU read the actual report yet? What statistics in the report do you disagree with?

[Sunfish]

I shouldn’t feed the troll but, You don’t understand statistics. Look up hypothesis testing. We cannot tell if Angel Flight is more prone to vfr into imc accidents using ANY statistics. There is not enough data because the chances are vanishingly small. As I said, if ATSB could have claimed that, they would.

The occurrences data is just straight BS.

Do you also have a scheme for winning Lotto?

[josephfeatherweight]

2 incidents. Count them: 2!
Lead Ballon, I usually find you very exacting in what you say, so this surprised me a bit.
I think you’ll find they were most definitely “accidents”.

[Ironpot]

The Insurance Companies will be the main influence on the government agencies - no matter what statistics say or indicate - and we all agree that accidents will happen no matter what. Stats and trends help to make management decisions but are tools and simply assist in the process. The Insurance industry has the ability to shut down any industry or endeavour if they don’t like what they see so clearly they don’t agree with the ATSB and consider AF as safe enough for their purposes.
On the face of it I would suggest that a 400 hr pilot with a Class 2 Medical would have the skills and ability to provide this service for AF. I would also suggest that, by that stage, he/she would also have had plenty of previous experience of opting for prudence by making decisions that would disappoint others.

AF is an incredible organisation from a regional Australian viewpoint. Their critics appear to live in metropolitan areas and may have difficulty in understanding the impact of a 16/20 hour car journey undertaken on a frequent basis. The people that use their services are, by definition, resident in regional areas and some actually do drive 8- 10 hours on a fortnightly basis. These patients don’t have to avail themselves of an AF but they continue to do so and only then on medical advice. I also suggest that the vast majority do so because a stressful visit to a specialist that may have taken a number of days is, in some cases, reduced to a day out allowing them to sleep in their own bed that night.

Angel Flight is a true Australian icon and embodies the true essence of “Care in the Community”. It is not above criticism but when the alternatives are considered it stands up to scrutiny. I’m quite proud to be involved with their endeavours and long may they continue.

[Lead Balloon]

Lead Ballon, I usually find you very exacting in what you say, so this surprised me a bit.
I think you’ll find they were most definitely “accidents”.

I’m aware of the counter-intuitive definition of “accident” in the ICAO convention and laws giving effect to it.

I was responding to this from AndrewR:One might be an isolated incident. 2 is more significant...