S211 Down Port Phillip Bay

[junior.VH-LFA]

Genuine question WetCompass, as you seem incredibly invested in this particular incident, so invested that over a 5 year account period it now makes up over 80% of your total post contributions - what is it about this specific tragedy that is making you so motivated to ensure a better outcome next time? Or it just something you have developed an interest in?

[WetCompass]

Genuine question WetCompass, as you seem incredibly invested in this particular incident, so invested that over a 5 year account period it now makes up over 80% of your total post contributions - what is it about this specific tragedy that is making you so motivated to ensure a better outcome next time?
Yeah, the first time in 5 years I've had a reaction where "professionals" don't want to address an issue. Instead, I've been inundated with ad-hominem and strawman attacks.
This forum has gone down hill.
Tell me, if you were involved in a midair collision in the middle of Port Phillip Bay and you had Moorabbin, Essendon, Melbourne and Avalon all available, no fuel, Notam or weather concerns, all within range, which one would you choose?
Simple really, just stick to the point.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Yeah, the first time in 5 years I've had a reaction where "professionals" don't want to address an issue. Instead, I've been inundated with ad-hominem and strawman attacks.
This forum has gone down hill.
Tell me, if you were involved in a midair collision in the middle of Port Phillip Bay and you had Moorabbin, Essendon, Melbourne and Avalon all available, no fuel, Notam or weather concerns, all within range, which one would you choose?
Simple really, just stick to the point.

Depends on how much damage the aircraft has sustained and if it's controllable. I have no problems with the PIC's decision to go to Essendon as a known airfield he had planned for given the (as far as we know) very light damage that was able to be visually seen from the cockpit. MB not suitable, extra track miles to Avalon for minimal gain given the condition of the aircraft. It's been explained in depth in this thread from pilots with real world experience in this type of flying, with a lot more experience than I have. Plan worked on the day after a traumatic event, can't ask for better than that.

[donpizmeov]

Yep, and there's the strawman and the ad-hominem attack.
So rather than addressing the point about the availability of another aerodrome and how the Mayday was acted upon by Melbourne Control, you stick to interpreting me out of context and lowering my status to a "random anonymous" person.
Well done, many on Twitter would be proud of you.

The only person that seems fixated on only one particular landing place seems to be your good self.

The PIC in this incident had a fairly traumatic incident, recovered quickly, and then aviated, navigated and effectively communicated.

Given the time frame, this would seem to be a very good example of natural decision making. He took the information available and came up with a plan. He had sufficient spare capacity to think ahead, and plan his arrival nominating his preferred runway and approach preference (and at 2000 feet to give more options). His request for a runway inspection after landing was a consideration taught at my past airline after any non normal landing. And this wasn't because we thought bits would fall off, it was a "just in case thing" .

Taking that the aircraft recovery went to plan, it proves the plan was good enough.

It is funny that you feel under attack when people disagree with you, but deny you are are attacking this crew when you don't agree with them.

This crew proved they can work well when under pressure.

[Capt Fathom]

.....you had Moorabbin, Essendon, Melbourne and Avalon all available, no fuel, Notam or weather concerns, all within range, which one would you choose?


The one I decide to go to on the day!

[WetCompass]

The one I decide to go to on the day!
Which would be?

[WetCompass]

The only person that seems fixated on only one particular landing place seems to be your good self.

The PIC in this incident had a fairly traumatic incident, recovered quickly, and then aviated, navigated and effectively communicated.

Given the time frame, this would seem to be a very good example of natural decision making. He took the information available and came up with a plan. He had sufficient spare capacity to think ahead, and plan his arrival nominating his preferred runway and approach preference (and at 2000 feet to give more options). His request for a runway inspection after landing was a consideration taught at my past airline after any non normal landing. And this wasn't because we thought bits would fall off, it was a "just in case thing" .

Taking that the aircraft recovery went to plan, it proves the plan was good enough.

It is funny that you feel under attack when people disagree with you, but deny you are are attacking this crew when you don't agree with them.

This crew proved they can work well when under pressure.

Yep, still straw manning.
If YOU were involved in a mid air mid Port Phillip Bay and Avalon was available, you would pass that up and go to home base? Even given all the other alternatives require flying over built up areas?

[PiperCameron]

Yep. Have you checked the YMAV landing fees lately?!? :eek: :ok:

Depends on how much damage the aircraft has sustained and if it's controllable. I have no problems with the PIC's decision to go to Essendon as a known airfield he had planned for given the (as far as we know) very light damage that was able to be visually seen from the cockpit. MB not suitable, extra track miles to Avalon for minimal gain given the condition of the aircraft. It's been explained in depth in this thread from pilots with real world experience in this type of flying, with a lot more experience than I have.

FWIW, I now remember at the time thinking it strange that ATC had cleared all traffic (and it was busy day!) off of the into-wind runway 17 at YMMB for a while there and made everyone operate from 13 in a slight crosswind instead. Presumably they were getting prepared, just in case?? Hmm.

[junior.VH-LFA]

His request for a runway inspection after landing was a consideration taught at my past airline after any non normal landing. And this wasn't because we thought bits would fall off, it was a "just in case thing" ..

I distinctly remember the firies driving behind me at Pearce while taxying in once after a piece of speed tape was dangling off a flap. Very much SOP to ask for it, doesn't necessarily mean you're worried about big parts of the aircraft coming apart. Obviously can't speak for the PIC but given their background may have asked for similar reasons.

[WetCompass]

Depends on how much damage the aircraft has sustained and if it's controllable. I have no problems with the PIC's decision to go to Essendon as a known airfield he had planned for given the (as far as we know) very light damage that was able to be visually seen from the cockpit. MB not suitable, extra track miles to Avalon for minimal gain given the condition of the aircraft. It's been explained in depth in this thread from pilots with real world experience in this type of flying, with a lot more experience than I have. Plan worked on the day after a traumatic event, can't ask for better than that.
If YOU were involved in a mid air YOU would just assume that because you are flying at the moment YOUR aeroplane would hang together and so YOU would fly over built up areas even though Avalon is available?

[Squawk7700]

Depends on how much damage the aircraft has sustained and if it's controllable. I have no problems with the PIC's decision to go to Essendon as a known airfield he had planned for given the (as far as we know) very light damage that was able to be visually seen from the cockpit. MB not suitable, extra track miles to Avalon for minimal gain given the condition of the aircraft. It's been explained in depth in this thread from pilots with real world experience in this type of flying, with a lot more experience than I have.

I think you mean LESS miles to Avalon.

interesting channel 9 I think reported he was inverted when they came into contact or just before.

ADSB shows a manoeuvre of sorts at around the time of impact.

[Capt Fathom]

Which would be?

You'll find out on the day.

[junior.VH-LFA]

I think you mean LESS miles to Avalon.




Not if you're going coastal to stay in glide range of land while you do your admin. Tracking coastal you'd have to keep trucking PAST EN/ML to get to Avalon. On Flight aware data you can see him decelerating to a speed not much higher than his later approach speed while tracking coastal, quite possibly doing that admin prior to making a decision.

[Squawk7700]

Not if you're going coastal to stay in glide range of land while you do your admin. Tracking coastal you'd have to keep trucking PAST EN/ML to get to Avalon. On Flight aware data you can see him decelerating to a speed not much higher than his later approach speed while tracking coastal, quite possibly doing that admin prior to making a decision.

You need to get out a ruler. They were so close to half way across the bay that it offered far better options to the west and the flight would have been over far less water than the eastern side.

If the wind was close to 17 as PC says it was, then YMAV looks more attractive yet again versus 26.

There’s no doubt it was a better option, but other factors took over, as you would reasonably expect them to. The biggest surprise to me is they didn’t climb to give more options.

[PiperCameron]

The biggest surprise to me is they didn’t climb to give more options.

He probably wanted to ensure contact with the ground and eyes outside would minimise his chances of another mid-air on the way home! (It was a fairly hazy day)

..but, yes, you're right. I'm sure ATC would have cleared him into the Class C up the top end of the bay in an instant if he'd asked. Maybe he did? I've not heard the YMEN tower comms so no idea.

[donpizmeov]

Yep, still straw manning.
If YOU were involved in a mid air mid Port Phillip Bay and Avalon was available, you would pass that up and go to home base? Even given all the other alternatives require flying over built up areas?

There is not enough information in your question for any pilot to make that decision. How much, if any damage is there to the aircraft? How is the aircraft performing and handling? What's the weather? What services do I require and where are they best addressed? And that would include get information out to help find the other aircraft after you land.

If the aeroplane was performing ok and I considered the damage contained, yes I would consider the option of overfly built up areas and go to home base which would be more familiar. If the aeroplane wasnt performing it would depend. You can't make a blanket decision until you have all the facts. You can certainly pre think what options are available, but you can't make the decision until you see what you have and what you don't have after the incident.

Lots of light aircraft fall from the sky when the engine stops. Should they all avoid flying over built up areas all of the time? Or should they carefully consider there options and always have a plan B?

[Squawk7700]

yes I would consider the option of overfly built up areas and go to home base which would be more familiar

Side-note: I keep seeing this word. He is a Jetstar pilot, if he hasn't flown into Avalon dozens of times I'll eat my hat!

[Lookleft]

He was a Jetstar pilot. He left Jetstar early last year or possibly early 2021 and he flew the 787 for many years before that. His recent experience with Avalon was probably as an airshow display pilot. It doesn't matter though, for reasons only he could consider he chose EN.

[DARKMAIZE]

Interesting that 7 News reporting that ATSB did not need the wreckage to be recovered and were happy to leave it where it lay.
Would that imply they already have all the information they require?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkQnoLREbOU

[Lookleft]

They would have the two surviving pilot statements of what happened, probably video footage and evidence of an unsurvivable impact. The wreckage is of more use to the Coroner than to the investigator's.

[ruprecht]

WetCompass

I had a student at 2FTS during the formation flying phase, who was having issues with what to do and say when the wingman loses contact and calls “blind”. When we sat down and discussed it, he showed me his preparation notes. He had written down every possible scenario like this:

LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, descending
WING, below safety height, turning towards, descending
LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
WING, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
LEAD, below safety height, turning away, descending
WING, below safety height, turning away, descending
LEAD, above safety height, turning towards, climbing…..

​​​​​……and so on and so on. Below each heading he wrote down every action and radio call, it went on for literally PAGES of text. The problem with this method is that when faced with a scenario, he was spending way too long trying to remember the exact mental cassette (that’s how old I am…) to plug in before acting — and when faced with a slight variation to his prepared responses he couldn’t cope because he didn’t have the exact response.

It was because he spent too much effort trying to learn the ANSWERS when he should have been learning the FORMULA:

Get me safe
Get wing safe
Get above safety height
Organise a height separation
Organise a rejoin

It’s not specific for every scenario, and you may call it winging it, but it gets the job done. As 601 said above: that’s why you get paid the big bikkies…

You remind me of that student: always looking for the exact answers, never thinking on his feet.

[Capt Bigglesworth]

Reference made above to "tracking coastal within glide distance of land" to Essendon.
Newsflash. Port Phillip Bay is an almost entirely enclosed body of water and one can "track coastal" in either direction. A route over the heads via Port Arlington and Point Henry leaves a tiny over water segment, and is shorter than tracking to Essendon. In fact, distance is not a factor if your aircraft is in good shape, the engine is turning and burning and you have fuel in the tanks.
In dismissing Avalon as an option someone referred to the perils of taking a direct track as it was "over deep water". Deep water only becomes an issue if you are concerned about losing control and spearing in. Hellooo! If that is a concern, under no circumstances should you choose a destination which requires flight over built-up areas. To be brutal, if the aircraft was at risk of catastrophic failure, the deep water only becomes an issue for recovery of bodies.
As for comparison with US Air 1549 (Sullenberger)?
That is the reddest of red herrings. Sullenberger's choice of alternates was limited by having 0/2 engines running and sfa altitude. He, in fact, chose the option of ditching in the Hudson for the very reason that an attempted approach to Teteboro could have put lives on the ground at risk.
The S211 had wing damage but it seems there were no issues with fuel or engine function, so choice of airport on those grounds was not a factor.
There seems to be a level of emotional reaction here in supporting those involved.
Understandable, perhaps.
But that, plus $5, will get you a cup of coffee.

[flyinghorseman]

He was a Jetstar pilot. He left Jetstar early last year or possibly early 2021 and he flew the 787 for many years before that. His recent experience with Avalon was probably as an airshow display pilot. It doesn't matter though, for reasons only he could consider he chose EN.
Maybe Essendon was chosen because that's where the car was parked. Not for anyone else to judge.

It is a sad industry if command decisions are to be made on the basis of what keyboard warriors might opine after the event.

[Capt Fathom]

Posted by Capt Bigglesworth….

Where have I read all that before? :}

[georgeeipi]

WetCompass

I had a student at 2FTS during the formation flying phase, who was having issues with what to do and say when the wingman loses contact and calls “blind”. When we sat down and discussed it, he showed me his preparation notes. He had written down every possible scenario like this:

LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, descending
WING, below safety height, turning towards, descending
LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
WING, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
LEAD, below safety height, turning away, descending
WING, below safety height, turning away, descending
LEAD, above safety height, turning towards, climbing…..

​​​​​……and so on and so on. Below each heading he wrote down every action and radio call, it went on for literally PAGES of text. The problem with this method is that when faced with a scenario, he was spending way too long trying to remember the exact mental cassette (that’s how old I am…) to plug in before acting — and when faced with a slight variation to his prepared responses he couldn’t cope because he didn’t have the exact response.

It was because he spent too much effort trying to learn the ANSWERS when he should have been learning the FORMULA:

Get me safe
Get wing safe
Get above safety height
Organise a height separation
Organise a rejoin

It’s not specific for every scenario, and you may call it winging it, but it gets the job done. As 601 said above: that’s why you get paid the big bikkies…

You remind me of that student: always looking for the exact answers, never thinking on his feet.

Four variables, lead/wing, above/below, towards/away, climbing/descending. That's 16 cases. So maybe 16 pages to enumerate the procedure, and there may be scope to compress that if some of the procedures are common to some of the cases. Not only that but you can rigorously test your principles based method against every case and make sure it works. What a motivated student and great learning opportunity for instructor and student.

[PiperCameron]

Reference made above to "tracking coastal within glide distance of land" to Essendon.
Newsflash. Port Phillip Bay is an almost entirely enclosed body of water and one can "track coastal" in either direction.

Newsflash for you then, sir: "tracking coastal" in the majority of posts in this thread refers to the Melbourne Coastal VFR route between Carrum and Melbourne City - as clearly marked on charts and used by anyone wanting to track along the eastern shore of Port Phillip towards the city wishing to avoid a mid-air with anyone coming the opposite direction. Just FYI. This airspace is under the control of ML CTR on 135.7, whereas the other side is (mostly) under AV APP 133.55

[Squawk7700]

Newsflash for you then, sir: "tracking coastal" in the majority of posts in this thread refers to the Melbourne Coastal VFR route between Carrum and Melbourne City - as clearly marked on charts and used by anyone wanting to track along the eastern shore of Port Phillip towards the city wishing to avoid a mid-air with anyone coming the opposite direction. Just FYI. This airspace is under the control of ML CTR on 135.7, whereas the other side is (mostly) under AV APP 133.55

That's a big assumption, I'm not sure what you're trying to suggest. You don't track the VFR coastal route in a jet at 200+ knots. That's just for pilots to transit Moorabbin to keep close to the beach.

To get back to YMEN it would require one frequency change to 125.1 and to get to Avalon it would be one change to 133.55. The Avalon airspace starts around 8nm out and Essendon is ~7nm out to make contact.

[megan]

Lots of light aircraft fall from the sky when the engine stops. Should they all avoid flying over built up areas all of the timeThe big fellas drop stuff on the suburbs as well up to and including engine pods, most damaging was a 747 shedding two pods then the airframe crashing into a block of apartments resulting in a large death toll, should ALL aircraft be banned from over flying the suburbs on that basis? More to worry about is a motor vehicle parking in your bedroom, happens on a regular basis.It is a sad industry if command decisions are to be made on the basis of what keyboard warriors might opine after the eventParticularly when that command decision produces an outcome of no consequence, I can't believe the Avalon discussion going on here, I'd expect better from experienced aviators - sorry.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I can't believe the Avalon discussion going on here, I'd expect better from experienced aviators - sorry.

I think you might be making an assumption there ;).

Four variables, lead/wing, above/below, towards/away, climbing/descending. That's 16 cases. So maybe 16 pages to enumerate the procedure, and there may be scope to compress that if some of the procedures are common to some of the cases. Not only that but you can rigorously test your principles based method against every case and make sure it works. What a motivated student and great learning opportunity for instructor and student.

Sure, but that’s just for a single scenario. Now consider everything else that might go wrong on a given trip, and how many different possibilities you’d have to work through. How many pages would you have to write, and how big would your brain have to be to be able to apply it all? Being a motivated and well-prepared student is great, but it’s got to be in a way that can be applied practically. (Which I think was Ruprecht’s point.)

[georgeeipi]

I think you might be making an assumption there ;).



Sure, but that’s just for a single scenario. Now consider everything else that might go wrong on a given trip, and how many different possibilities you’d have to work through. How many pages would you have to write, and how big would your brain have to be to be able to apply it all? Being a motivated and well-prepared student is great, but it’s got to be in a way that can be applied practically. (Which I think was Ruprecht’s point.)

The student would have enumerated 16 cases, that potentially could be simplified to fewer given a principles approach as Ruprecht says.
Aviation safety is an incremental process. Somebody writes out the 16 pages and then should publish it in one of the aviation journals. And then others can read it and improve on it. There are hundreds of thousands of pages in the aviation journals. This is how science works and how we have the super safe aviation systems we have today.
My heart sank when I read Ruprecht's post. It seems he shut down part of a really good process. In medicine they have the concept of the scientist-practitioner. Every medical specialist at some point has done a research project and knows how the scientific process works. What a pity we don't do that in aviation.

[georgeeipi]

The big fellas drop stuff on the suburbs as well up to and including engine pods, most damaging was a 747 shedding two pods then the airframe crashing into a block of apartments resulting in a large death toll, should ALL aircraft be banned from over flying the suburbs on that basis? More to worry about is a motor vehicle parking in your bedroom, happens on a regular basis.Particularly when that command decision produces an outcome of no consequence, I can't believe the Avalon discussion going on here, I'd expect better from experienced aviators - sorry.

Have a look at the FAA's aircraft type certification process and perhaps some of the risk-assesment processes described by ICAO. The aircraft type certification process attempts to catch out things like engines falling off airplanes. If, however, an engine does fall off then there's usually an investigation to prevent that happening again. And all of those safety systems require the pilot to be doing their best to prevent an accident from happening.
An airplane that has been in a midair would probably not comply with the airworthiness standards that it's type certification was based on. Then it is up to the PIC to take that into consideration, and if there is an option that can avoid flight over built-up areas then the PIC better have a good reason for not taking it. In the case in this thread, the PIC got away with it. But that doesn't mean we collectively as professionals cannot be considering the alternatives. I can't believe that experienced aviators want to shut down such a conversation.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

My heart sank when I read Ruprecht's post. It seems he shut down part of a really good process. In medicine they have the concept of the scientist-practitioner. Every medical specialist at some point has done a research project and knows how the scientific process works. What a pity we don't do that in aviation.

Maybe rather than shutting down a really good process, he was facilitating a more practical and workable approach.
Of course there’s a place for the scientific process in aviation safety, but when my wingman loses contact, I don’t want a scientist-practitioner. I want a simple, practical solution. Right now.

In any case, we’re some way off topic (again).

[ruprecht]

My heart sank when I read Ruprecht's post. It seems he shut down part of a really good process. In medicine they have the concept of the scientist-practitioner. Every medical specialist at some point has done a research project and knows how the scientific process works. What a pity we don't do that in aviation.

Just to be clear, the problem wasn’t with the identification of all possible permutations and combinations - that’s what study is for.

The problem was he was treating them all as discrete responses, and it was taking too long to identify which situation he was in and then waiting several seconds to figure out what to do as he mentally rifled through his 16 pages of notes.

[georgeeipi]

Maybe rather than shutting down a really good process, he was facilitating a more practical and workable approach.
Of course there’s a place for the scientific process in aviation safety, but when my wingman loses contact, I don’t want a scientist-practitioner. I want a simple, practical solution. Right now.

In any case, we’re some way off topic (again).

Interesting.
A scientist-practitioner in an aviation context is someone who is an experienced aviator and can be a scientist on the ground. The scientific investigation is in slow time, such as enumerating the possibilities of a particular scenario. The key is to find ways to apply the findings of the science in the air as a practitioner which often operates in fast time.

Is a rule-based approach that requires 16 cases to be memorized practical? Perhaps, if the rules are simple and the scenario can be practiced in the air or simulator and become a natural response. But if not, it's important to enumerate scenarios anyway and then attempt to find ways to compress the rules into a manageable format for use in the air. Ruprecht suggested a principles based format. Then as an instructor, he could use an enumeration as a way of testing his principles. If that has never been done before then it becomes an important publishable article. A scientist-practitioner would know that.

As for "we're way off topic", there are a lot of aviators on this thread suggesting we shouldn't consider the scenario of this thread because it is a criticism of a perfect pilot. Humans are not perfect, so the system has to be error tolerant. So how do we achieve this error-tolerance? The frequent argument in this thread seems to be that flight scenarios are too complex to be analyzed. But isn't that what an accident investigation is? We learn incrementally by considering things that have gone wrong in the past and consider new ways of doing them better, on the ground, in slow time. What we learn even goes into the analyses that go into designing new aircraft types and the certification process that tests the new aircraft in lots of scenarios, including the potentially catastrophic ones. That's why type certification includes so many hours of test flying and requires many thick documents. Those aviators wanting to shut down the conversation in this thread seem to be advocating that none of this would be of any use. Yet the checklists and memorized items they use in the air have come from exactly the process they want to shut down in this thread.
.
Or have I missed something and the new norm for aviators is they are perfect heroes and so any critique needs to be cancelled? Sounds like the opposite of CRM.

[georgeeipi]

Just to be clear, the problem wasn’t with the identification of all possible permutations and combinations - that’s what study is for.

The problem was he was treating them all as discrete responses, and it was taking too long to identify which situation he was in and then waiting several seconds to figure out what to do as he mentally rifled through his 16 pages of notes.

Agreed, your student did a great job of studying.
The question then is could the permutations be simplified? There are techniques for doing that, perhaps Karnaugh maps used in computer-science. Not saying you should know that, but that's where a collaboration with a scientist in an appropriate field may help. It also addresses your concern that there is no pathway from an enumeration to something useful in flight. There often are solutions to what looks intractable on first inspection. But that means remaining open to the possibility.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

As for "we're way off topic", there are a lot of aviators on this thread suggesting we shouldn't consider the scenario of this thread because it is a criticism of a perfect pilot.
.
​​​​​…
Or have I missed something and the new norm for aviators is they are perfect heroes and so any critique needs to be cancelled? Sounds like the opposite of CRM.

No, I think what you’re missing is not that people should think the pilot was a perfect hero and can’t be criticised. It’s the fact that people who are unfamiliar with the aircraft type, unfamiliar with that type of flying, weren’t there at the time, and have no idea exactly what those pilots experienced (either during the collision or subsequently) feel entitled to repeatedly question and criticise those pilots’ actions (while disingenuously denying questioning or criticising), while having absolutely no idea what options and thought processes were actually in play at the time.

By all means wonder if Avalon might’ve been a good option and if it was considered. No problem with that, it’s a reasonable discussion, as long as we keep in mind that there’s a huge amount we simply don’t know. But go back and look at the substance and tone of Wet Compass’ posts. That’s the sort of thing people are taking exception to. (And don’t get me started on the ridiculous nonsense about the Mayday call.)

[georgeeipi]

No, I think what you’re missing is not that people should think the pilot was a perfect hero and can’t be criticised. It’s the fact that people who are unfamiliar with the aircraft type, unfamiliar with that type of flying, weren’t there at the time, and have no idea exactly what those pilots experienced (either during the collision or subsequently) feel entitled to repeatedly question and criticise those pilots’ actions (while disingenuously denying questioning or criticising), while having absolutely no idea what options and thought processes were actually in play at the time.

By all means wonder if Avalon might’ve been a good option and if it was considered. No problem with that, it’s a reasonable discussion, as long as we keep in mind that there’s a huge amount we simply don’t know. But go back and look at the substance and tone of Wet Compass’ posts. That’s the sort of thing people are taking exception to. (And don’t get me started on the ridiculous nonsense about the Mayday call.)

You're arguing exactly what I said some aviators are arguing. You're arguing the decisions all require the minutiae, the detail, down in the weeds, no principles to be learned.
Ok, so if I'm in a midair in my little C152 with a big jet, over the middle of Port Philip bay and the big jet goes down in the bay and I'm flying but with a crumpled wing, where do I go? Moorabbin or Avalon? Or Essendon? Or I'm in a big jet with a heap of passengers down the back and I collide with a little C152 and the C152 goes down in the bay and I am left flying but with a crumpled wing. Where do I go?
What sort of detail causes a difference that leads to a different decision?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

You're arguing exactly what I said some aviators are arguing. You're arguing the decisions all require the minutiae, the detail, down in the weeds, no principles to be learned.


No, I’m not arguing there are no principles to be learned - don’t put words in my mouth. (In fact I believe that sound basic principles might sometimes be more useful than 16 pages of exhaustive analysis …) I’m arguing something completely different - that if you want to repeatedly question and criticise the actions of someone who’s dealt successfully with an emergency, you need a solid understanding of what they experienced, what options they considered, and why they chose the course of action they did. That understanding has been absent here.

[georgeeipi]

No, I’m not arguing there are no principles to be learned - don’t put words in my mouth. (In fact I believe that sound basic principles might sometimes be more useful than 16 pages of exhaustive analysis …) I’m arguing something completely different - that if you want to repeatedly question and criticise the actions of someone who’s dealt successfully with an emergency, you need a solid understanding of what they experienced, what options they considered, and why they chose the course of action they did. That understanding has been absent here.

A solid understanding because there may be some minutiae that can rise up and require a completely different decision?
I'm putting it to you that following a midair collision there is no way a pilot can ascertain the extent of the damage to the airframe and the degree to which the airworthiness has been compromised.
In that case, and with an abundance of caution, the PIC, should consider avoiding flying over built-up area if there is an airport that allows that.
Now what minutiae will rise up and change these 2 principles?

[ResBunny]

ad nauseam

[Booger]

Itsnotthatbloodyhard, I applaud your measured, reasoned attempts at illustrating the paucity of rationality in some of the armchair experts' criticisms on here, I really do.

However, I do feel your efforts maybe as wasted as those of an Aerospace Engineer attempting to explain gyroscopic precession to room full of flat Earthers 😀

[rodney rude]

Georgee - its not true that following a midair the pilot cannot forecast the damage to his airframe. BS - he gets hit on a wing, he feels it and looks out and sees a dent in his wing. If he knows he was hit on the wing and he sees nothing but a dent, I think we can safely assume he knows the damage and therefore risks to those on the ground. A dent doesn't make things fall off. And if he assures himself the only damage he has is a dent, then its up to him, not you, not Squawk 7700 and certainly not up to Wetdream, to determine the state of his aircraft and where he should put it.

[Booger]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/244x236/tumblr_ffd7f3d2165d2531c9711caa439bf9f7_8815720d_250_e0fc4b8 4a4df19b5e0c787c6fc97ecb302c27897.gif

[georgeeipi]

Georgee - its not true that following a midair the pilot cannot forecast the damage to his airframe. BS - he gets hit on a wing, he feels it and looks out and sees a dent in his wing. If he knows he was hit on the wing and he sees nothing but a dent, I think we can safely assume he knows the damage and therefore risks to those on the ground. A dent doesn't make things fall off. And if he assures himself the only damage he has is a dent, then its up to him, not you, not Squawk 7700 and certainly not up to Wetdream, to determine the state of his aircraft and where he should put it.

When is a dent only a dent?
Sure, it may be only a dent. But the best the PIC can say is they are now flying an aircraft that is unairworthy. At worst, if the aeroplane is still flying after the collision there may be a fracture in the airframe and the potential for imminent break up. So we have a potential spectrum of possibilities, all of which fall into the unairworthy category and possible inflight breakup. How exactly can a pilot tell where they are on the spectrum? To say they can but without explaining how a pilot would do that is at best disingenuous and at worst malicious to the writer.

If we accept the pilot can't tell where exactly they fall in the unairworthiness spectrum then the 2nd principle applies, proceed with an abundance of caution. Which then means if there is an alternative airport that doesn't risk those on the ground then take it.
All the attempts at counter arguments I have seen so far, throw out one or both of these two principles without justification and often with attacks on the writers.

[georgeeipi]

Itsnotthatbloodyhard, I applaud your measured, reasoned attempts at illustrating the paucity of rationality in some of the armchair experts' criticisms on here, I really do.

However, I do feel your efforts maybe as wasted as those of an Aerospace Engineer attempting to explain gyroscopic precession to room full of flat Earthers 😀

Except you have the players the wrong way around. I'm the engineering-scientist-pilot and the others are telling me I don't know my professions.

[Mr Mossberg]

Maybe the PIC should have zig-zagged until he crossed the coast clear of any ground structure, then ditched it in the outback on a saltpan somewhere, clear of all obstacles of course. Then the ATSB could relocate a team to investigate the airframe for hairline cracks in the airframe. 3 years later, when that investigation is done, they can investigate the incident itself. So I reckon the final report should be done by 2029-ish. In the meantime, CASA can ban any civil ops in close formation. Australians have proved they will blindly do what they are told despite facts/evidence etc.

Everybody will be kept safe by CASA, and they will like it.

[georgeeipi]

Maybe the PIC should have zig-zagged until he crossed the coast clear of any ground structure, then ditched it in the outback on a saltpan somewhere, clear of all obstacles of course. Then the ATSB could relocate a team to investigate the airframe for hairline cracks in the airframe. 3 years later, when that investigation is done, they can investigate the incident itself. So I reckon the final report should be done by 2029-ish. In the meantime, CASA can ban any civil ops in close formation. Australians have proved they will blindly do what they are told despite facts/evidence etc.

Everybody will be kept safe by CASA, and they will like it.
And then there are the malicious Strawman arguments. I'm willing to wager that you know you were being malicious. All we're talking about is a diversion to an airport with excellent facilities. What is your problem exactly?

[PiperCameron]

How exactly can a pilot tell where they are on the spectrum? To say they can but without explaining how a pilot would do that is at best disingenuous and at worst malicious to the writer.

That's easy: (a) Training and (b) Experience. And, so far as we know, the pilot in this accident had plenty of both.

As is often stated regarding military and ex-military aircraft: "If it's still flying, there's a checklist for that!"

[georgeeipi]

That's easy: (a) Training and (b) Experience. And, so far as we know, the pilot in this accident had plenty of both.

As is often stated regarding military and ex-military aircraft: "If it's still flying, there's a checklist for that!"

a) magic training
b) magic experience

You've just given an answer without actually stating how any pilot can be trained or what experience they will get that will enable them to tell if the airframe has suffered something like a major structural failure, like a dangerous fracture. I can tell you what they'll do on the ground after any sort of inflight impact, they'll run through a barrage of non-destructive testing and visual inspections of the structure. What is the equivalent in the air? There is none.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Ok George, let’s say you’re right and that after any mid-air collision, the aircraft might break up in mid-air, or pieces could fall off, even if the collision seemed to involve no more than a small dent. I hope that’s a fair summary of your position, without any strawmanning, ad hominem, etc.



But we can’t just draw the line at a mid-air, can we? What about a birdstrike (or suspected birdstrike)? We’re just talking small dents, after all. Sure, the spar mightn’t fail, but maybe pieces will fall off. It might’ve been a big, heavy bird - we’re not really sure.

Or what about severe turbulence? Perhaps it’s overstressed the airframe. Pieces might fall off, or the entire structure could fail. We really don’t know.



So there you are, George, in your 200t airliner planning an approach to 16R in Sydney. But you’ve just had a suspected birdstrike or flown through some nasty turbulence (you choose). By your own reckoning, you simply can’t guarantee that pieces won’t fall off or the structure won’t fail. Are you, the scientist-engineer-pilot, going to continue your approach over a highly-populated area in a 15 kt headwind to the longest runway in the country, or are you off elsewhere? By your own logic, I don’t see that you have any option but to divert, after your suspected birdstrike/spot of nasty turbulence.



Let’s take another example. Can you absolutely guarantee that the aircraft you’re about to fly has never had another pilot overspeed it/overstress it/do a hard landing, without reporting it? Unless you’re the only one who’s ever flown it or it’s straight out of an inspection, I don’t think you can. In which case, you simply can’t be sure of its structural integrity, and you shouldn’t be flying it over a built-up area. In fact you probably shouldn’t be flying it at all. It gets a bit tricky, doesn’t it?



This doesn’t prove anything, but might be of interest:

I’ve known quite a few people who’ve been in mid-air collisions; witnessed one from the ground; and known of numerous others. In each case all the structural damage and separation of parts happened at the time of impact, not subsequently.

I’ve also known two pilots who died when their airframes failed without warning in flight, in separate incidents. They hadn’t overstressed or oversped, nor collided with anything. So you can never really be sure, can you?

[Mr Mossberg]

And then there are the malicious Strawman arguments. I'm willing to wager that you know you were being malicious.

Malicious? No. Sarcastic? Yes.

​​​​​​​All we're talking about is a diversion to an airport with excellent facilities.

Have you been to Avalon lately? Essendon has a couple of supermarkets, great produce, a few coffee shops, trams out the front that will have you in town in 30 mins.

​​​​​​​What is your problem exactly?

I'm getting on a bit, old and grumpy. My body is starting to let me down a little, physically. But life is pretty good really.

[georgeeipi]

Ok George, let’s say you’re right and that after any mid-air collision, the aircraft might break up in mid-air, or pieces could fall off, even if the collision seemed to involve no more than a small dent. I hope that’s a fair summary of your position, without any strawmanning, ad hominem, etc.



But we can’t just draw the line at a mid-air, can we? What about a birdstrike (or suspected birdstrike)? We’re just talking small dents, after all. Sure, the spar mightn’t fail, but maybe pieces will fall off. It might’ve been a big, heavy bird - we’re not really sure.

Or what about severe turbulence? Perhaps it’s overstressed the airframe. Pieces might fall off, or the entire structure could fail. We really don’t know.



So there you are, George, in your 200t airliner planning an approach to 16R in Sydney. But you’ve just had a suspected birdstrike or flown through some nasty turbulence (you choose). By your own reckoning, you simply can’t guarantee that pieces won’t fall off or the structure won’t fail. Are you, the scientist-engineer-pilot, going to continue your approach over a highly-populated area in a 15 kt headwind to the longest runway in the country, or are you off elsewhere? By your own logic, I don’t see that you have any option but to divert, after your suspected birdstrike/spot of nasty turbulence.



Let’s take another example. Can you absolutely guarantee that the aircraft you’re about to fly has never had another pilot overspeed it/overstress it/do a hard landing, without reporting it? Unless you’re the only one who’s ever flown it or it’s straight out of an inspection, I don’t think you can. In which case, you simply can’t be sure of its structural integrity, and you shouldn’t be flying it over a built-up area. In fact you probably shouldn’t be flying it at all. It gets a bit tricky, doesn’t it?



This doesn’t prove anything, but might be of interest:

I’ve known quite a few people who’ve been in mid-air collisions; witnessed one from the ground; and known of numerous others. In each case all the structural damage and separation of parts happened at the time of impact, not subsequently.

I’ve also known two pilots who died when their airframes failed without warning in flight, in separate incidents. They hadn’t overstressed or oversped, nor collided with anything. So you can never really be sure, can you?

You are straw-manning.
Here's the scenario we're talking about:
You're over the southern part of Port Phillip Bay and there are 3 known airports to choose from after the collision, one of which is huge, into wind, control tower with radar vectors available and no flight over built-up areas required. Why not take that one if you have any doubts?

If we go outside that scenario into strawman territory, then it depends. For example, Sydney airport, why not ask for an approach in over Botany Bay if possible? Or if you are further north why not go to Williamtown if that's long enough, I'm sure the military types will be accommodating, or would they send a stricken aircraft away because "you're still flying and it's all in your checklist"?

As for a bird strike, particularly in a lighty, why not land ASAP and have the aeroplane checked on the ground? I've done that more than once.

As for flying an aeroplane with an airframe that might have been overstressed by previous inconsiderate pilots such as in an aeroclub situation or with student pilots who have been soloing, yes, BTDT. You do as thorough preflight as possible and if you have any doubts get it checked before flying off into the sunset. If the aeroplane breaks up in flight you'll be dead and it'll be the inconsiderate pilot who'll have to answer to the court (if they can find them).

But these are not the scenario we are talking about. In the scenario we are talking about you know there is damage, just not how much. Continuing without consideration of your aircraft being unairworthy is potentially negligent. Sure you can keep going, but then be prepared to defend your decision in court. "Well your honor, I didn't mean to crash, I did know there was damage but I made my decision because I'm experienced and had magic training." Against a good barrister? Good luck with that one.

But I reckon you know all this because you're an experienced pilot. You're just trying it on.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

You are straw-manning.
No I’m not, I’m applying your logic to other scenarios. You’re repeatedly using the ‘straw-man’ claim to try and get yourself out of awkward spots.

For example, Sydney airport, why not ask for an approach in over Botany Bay if possible?
There was 15 kt headwind on 16R. Do you really want to land your 200t airliner with 15 kt tailwind and a potentially compromised airframe?

​​​​​​​Or if you are further north why not go to Williamtown
Oops, probably a similar wind to what was in Sydney, so you’ve either got to overfly Raymond Terrace &/or other populated areas to land into wind, or take a non-precision approach onto 30 with considerable downwind. You’ve certainly now ventured into some interesting territory for what was originally just a possible birdstrike or turbulence encounter, haven’t you?

​​​​​​​As for a bird strike, particularly in a lighty, why not land ASAP and have the aeroplane checked on the ground? I've done that more than once.
For starters, we weren’t talking about a lighty, and in our example, landing ASAP involves 16R over a densely populated area. Try again.

​​​​​​​You do as thorough preflight as possible and if you have any doubts get it checked before flying off into the sunset
Not good enough, and far too glib. Your thorough preflight won’t detect underlying structural damage, and you’ve got no way of knowing whether or not you should have any doubts.

​​​​​​​If the aeroplane breaks up in flight you'll be dead and it'll be the inconsiderate pilot who'll have to answer to the court (if they can find them).

WHAT?! It’s not just you that’s dead, what about all those people you were flying over in an aircraft whose structural integrity you couldn’t guarantee? Has this entire discussion been a waste of time??

​​​​​​​In the scenario we are talking about you know there is damage, just not how much
You may have a very good idea how much, depending on the magnitude and location of the impact. Or you may not. In the case of the S.211, we have no idea what they knew. In the end, it may come to a subjective assessment of risk, just as it did when you considered diverting and landing downwind due to a possible birdstrike. :ok:​​​​​​​

[PiperCameron]

Has this entire discussion been a waste of time??

Pretty much... Welcome to pprune :ok:

[georgeeipi]

No I’m not, I’m applying your logic to other scenarios. You’re repeatedly using the ‘straw-man’ claim to try and get yourself out of awkward spots.


There was 15 kt headwind on 16R. Do you really want to land your 200t airliner with 15 kt tailwind and a potentially compromised airframe?


Oops, probably a similar wind to what was in Sydney, so you’ve either got to overfly Raymond Terrace &/or other populated areas to land into wind, or take a non-precision approach onto 30 with considerable downwind. You’ve certainly now ventured into some interesting territory for what was originally just a possible birdstrike or turbulence encounter, haven’t you?


For starters, we weren’t talking about a lighty, and in our example, landing ASAP involves 16R over a densely populated area. Try again.


Not good enough, and far too glib. Your thorough preflight won’t detect underlying structural damage, and you’ve got no way of knowing whether or not you should have any doubts.


WHAT?! It’s not just you that’s dead, what about all those people you were flying over in an aircraft whose structural integrity you couldn’t guarantee? Has this entire discussion been a waste of time??


You may have a very good idea how much, depending on the magnitude and location of the impact. Or you may not. In the case of the S.211, we have no idea what they knew. In the end, it may come to a subjective assessment of risk, just as it did when you considered diverting and landing downwind due to a possible birdstrike. :ok:


So you're talking about a single scenario based on Sydney. I thought you were talking about a variety of scenarios. So you're suggesting that you're in a 200t airliner flying into 16 and that requires over flying Sydney itself. So you've made up a scenario where there is no alternative.

Well then congratulations, clearly you have no alternative (because you made it up that way) but to go into Sydney 16R carrying damage. In court if something did fall off and killed a dozen people on the ground you would testify that you didn't know the full extent of the damage because there is no magic training or experience that would enable you to know such a thing but you are the captain and you made your inflight decision as best you could and you take full responsibility for your decision you made based on incomplete information. (all of which is the opposite of what you argued earlier) You'd take your chances with the opposing barrister and whether they can prove that you did have magic training and you did know the full extent of the damage because that would prove you to be negligent and you'd be hoping that he couldn't identify an alternate airport. I'm sure you know this because you're a very experienced pilot.

But then you know you made the scenario up this way to prove what exactly? That Avalon doesn't exist near Port Phillip Bay? And you're going back to "what they knew?" I thought we're not talking about "what they knew?" I thought we were talking about what we know now and what we might do in future if we ever have an event that makes our aircraft unairworthy and not discarding good airports around Port Phillip Bay all because we were stressed because we saw our friends perish and we became fixated on "where our car is parked" (as someone wrote above). The best antidote for stress and shock is visualization and training, is it not? But then you know this because you're an experienced pilot and you know how to read a flight manual. :ok:

[georgeeipi]

Malicious? No. Sarcastic? Yes.

Pretty much the same thing on a forum.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

So you've made up a scenario where there is no alternative.

Well then congratulations, clearly you have no alternative (because you made it up that way) but to go into Sydney 16R carrying damage.

No, I didn’t, and I’m quite disappointed that you never considered Canberra or even Nowra. The Monday morning quarterbacks are going to be all over that, and the fact that you’ve gotten into this mess over what started out as only a turbulence encounter or a possible birdstrike.

What I’m trying to get across is that it may be impossible to ever be completely certain that your airframe is not compromised in some way, even though your argument is based on requiring that certainty. Generally we’ll assess and accept that risk, on the basis that we have no reason to believe that it is compromised (you only had a possible bird strike after all, so I reckon you’ll be fine to continue onto 16R :ok:). In the case of the S.211, the pilots may very well have had no reason to believe that the airframe was structurally compromised - impossible as that may be for you to believe. I simply don’t know, and nor do you.

[georgeeipi]

Pretty much... Welcome to pprune :ok:
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x342/megan_a71f55b4945fd4e93e8959ccc8e74f07d0c0ff11.png

Not from me, but one of your supporters that wants to cancel this discussion just like you do. But on another thread, quite happy to "speculate" because it's "educational" and telling everyone to go f-off without quite saying it that way. Perhaps you should take their advice and if you're bored, go elsewhere and entertain yourselves.

[Squawk7700]

Why is wetcompass now posting as georgeepi, did he get banned?


I’ve known quite a few people who’ve been in mid-air collisions; witnessed one from the ground; and known of numerous others.


… and this is why we will never be friends.

[sagesau]

And yet the aircraft still flying landed back at base with it's occupants still alive and no reported bits falling off en-route over built up areas. Not trying to diminish the actual collision, but I can't see that what was said after the collision and where they landed makes any difference to the outcome. PIC took command, made decisions, surviving aircraft and passenger went home that night. Changing which decision after the event would have made any difference to the outcome?

[mickjoebill]

In dismissing Avalon as an option someone referred to the perils of taking a direct track as it was "over deep water". Deep water only becomes an issue if you are concerned about losing control and spearing in.

Evaluation of risk associated with ditching would include the availability of life preservers.
Were life vests donned or available for these flights?

Mjb

[georgeeipi]

No, I didn’t, and I’m quite disappointed that you never considered Canberra or even Nowra. The Monday morning quarterbacks are going to be all over that, and the fact that you’ve gotten into this mess over what started out as only a turbulence encounter or a possible birdstrike.

What I’m trying to get across is that it may be impossible to ever be completely certain that your airframe is not compromised in some way, even though your argument is based on requiring that certainty. Generally we’ll assess and accept that risk, on the basis that we have no reason to believe that it is compromised (you only had a possible bird strike after all, so I reckon you’ll be fine to continue onto 16R :ok:). In the case of the S.211, the pilots may very well have had no reason to believe that the airframe was structurally compromised - impossible as that may be for you to believe. I simply don’t know, and nor do you.

I'm not arguing you have to be completely certain about the state of the airframe when you accept the aircraft as PIC. There are processes in place that are supposed to document the airworthiness of an aircraft. I'm sure you know that, you're an experienced pilot. Yes, others can be negligent and not document incidents and unserviceabilities. But how is flying an aeroplane that has hit another aeroplane and is known to have become unairworthy equivalent to negligent use of the maintenance system? In one case, the pilot knows the aeroplane has just become unairworthy, but in the other they don't know the aeroplane is unairworthy, all the documentation says otherwise. If anything happened it's the operator and their systems and the negligent pilots that would be dragged into court for negligence.

Back to your scenario, I did think of Nowra and Canberra as well. But I thought your scenario is about there being no alternative since you were quick to dismiss Williamtown. And both Canberra and Nowra are not as long as Sydney, which you seemed to indicate was critical. But now you are disclosing that you were deliberately hiding these alternatives in your description? For what purpose? To catch me out? Ok, then, now that you've disclosed that Canberra and Nowra are there, are you now going next going to tell me we don't have enough fuel to get there? Or the crosswind is too strong? Or the runways are too short? What next?

[georgeeipi]

Why is wetcompass now posting as georgeepi, did he get banned?



… and this is why we will never be friends.
WetCompass emailed me and asked me to look at this thread. (we know each other and go back a way). Yes, he was banned. Not sure why, but reading through the thread it's pathetic. The moderators either don't understand, or they're hypocrites. Either way, I'm happy to say that and they can ban me as well if they so choose.

[georgeeipi]

And yet the aircraft still flying landed back at base with it's occupants still alive and no reported bits falling off en-route over built up areas. Not trying to diminish the actual collision, but I can't see that what was said after the collision and where they landed makes any difference to the outcome. PIC took command, made decisions, surviving aircraft and passenger went home that night. Changing which decision after the event would have made any difference to the outcome?

I've been an FO where the PIC busted IFR minimums. Their argument? Those minimums are for the average pilot, has to be, by definition. They are experienced captains so it's ok for them to go a little below the minimums.
So payload delivered and they walked away for another day's flying, so all good.

Only problem is, it's the right outcome but the wrong process.

[junior.VH-LFA]

WetCompass emailed me and asked me to look at this thread. (we know each other and go back a way). Yes, he was banned. Not sure why, but reading through the thread it's pathetic. The moderators either don't understand, or they're hypocrites. Either way, I'm happy to say that and they can ban me as well if they so choose.

We can only hope.

[Squawk7700]

WetCompass emailed me and asked me to look at this thread. (we know each other and go back a way). Yes, he was banned. Not sure why, but reading through the thread it's pathetic. The moderators either don't understand, or they're hypocrites. Either way, I'm happy to say that and they can ban me as well if they so choose.

Your “friend” uses the words “straw man” equally as much as you do.

[sagesau]

I've been an FO where the PIC busted IFR minimums. Their argument? Those minimums are for the average pilot, has to be, by definition. They are experienced captains so it's ok for them to go a little below the minimums.
So payload delivered and they walked away for another day's flying, so all good.

Only problem is, it's the right outcome but the wrong process.

Bit of a stretch. Slight difference in scenarios between busting minimums and dealing with an emergency.

Collision occurred, Aviated, communicated, landed, walked away.
Maybe communication could have been better but, perhaps he was a bit distracted. Is there a new minimum communication for emergencies that takes precedence to aviating?
Could have landed somewhere else but, perhaps whilst aviating he reduced his workload by landing at a familiar location that was only a few minutes further away than other locations. But more time may have been spent looking up details on those other locations.

[georgeeipi]

We can only hope.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x476/megan2_208bd0ad3e74ea44eb47a7c070dceff0f2803b4b.png
Again, not from me, but from good ol Megan predicting the collapse of pprune for "lack of discourse" if we didn't have open discussion.

When the ATSB investigated the overrun of QF1 in Thailand, the ATSB investigated the evacuation procedure. Everyone go out alive so why did they do that? Every accident and incident is an opportunity to investigate all aspects of procedures, even if the procedures that "worked". In the case of QF1 the investigation revealed areas where Qantas could improve its evacuation procedures. Discovering that only became possible when the system was put under stress. That's what we're trying to do here, but before the 3 years ATSB investigation. Seems some only want discourse that suits them and the rest should vanish. And much of the justification is based on "you don't know what you're talking about", and much of that is based on constructing a false description of the argument and destroying the false argument. It's a shame because all of that has the effect of trying to shut down a legitimate discourse.

[georgeeipi]

Bit of a stretch. Slight difference in scenarios between busting minimums and dealing with an emergency.

Collision occurred, Aviated, communicated, landed, walked away.
Maybe communication could have been better but, perhaps he was a bit distracted. Is there a new minimum communication for emergencies that takes precedence to aviating?
Could have landed somewhere else but, perhaps whilst aviating he reduced his workload by landing at a familiar location that was only a few minutes further away than other locations. But more time may have been spent looking up details on those other locations.

It's not "a stretch". It's an example of where you survive but with the wrong process. Then one day, applying the wrong process you, or someone else, may not survive. In the case of Port Phillip Bay there's a 3rd airport available and reduces risk to those below. If the mayday had been clearer ATC could have suggested Avalon as an alternative and then reduced the pilot's workload by providing all the info needed. As described elsewhere, one frequency change and a couple of radar vectors is all it would have taken. Notams, weather etc all would be taken care of by ATC and provided to the pilot. This continual resistance that it was all too hard for an experienced pilot is just baffling. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

[sagesau]

It's not "a stretch". It's an example of where you survive but with the wrong process. Then one day, applying the wrong process you, or someone else, may not survive. In the case of Port Phillip Bay there's a 3rd airport available and reduces risk to those below. If the mayday had been clearer ATC could have suggested Avalon as an alternative and then reduced the pilot's workload by providing all the info needed. As described elsewhere, one frequency change and a couple of radar vectors is all it would have taken. Notams, weather etc all would be taken care of by ATC and provided to the pilot. This continual resistance that it was all too hard for an experienced pilot is just baffling. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
You'll get over it

[junior.VH-LFA]

It's not "a stretch". It's an example of where you survive but with the wrong process. Then one day, applying the wrong process you, or someone else, may not survive. In the case of Port Phillip Bay there's a 3rd airport available and reduces risk to those below. If the mayday had been clearer ATC could have suggested Avalon as an alternative and then reduced the pilot's workload by providing all the info needed. As described elsewhere, one frequency change and a couple of radar vectors is all it would have taken. Notams, weather etc all would be taken care of by ATC and provided to the pilot. This continual resistance that it was all too hard for an experienced pilot is just baffling. Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Luckily no one really cares if you buy it or not.

[rodney rude]

How about we all stop replying and just let Georgee, Wetdream and Squaaawk go back and forth to convince each other how professional they themselves are and how they are the airmanship heroes and rest of us stupid plods who know nothing just rest on our thoughts that Viper 1 did a commendable job.

[Mach E Avelli]

It's not "a stretch". It's an example of where you survive but with the wrong process. Then one day, applying the wrong process you, or someone else, may not survive. In the case of Port Phillip Bay there's a 3rd airport available and reduces risk to those below. If the mayday had been clearer ATC could have suggested Avalon as an alternative and then reduced the pilot's workload by providing all the info needed. As described elsewhere, one frequency change and a couple of radar vectors is all it would have taken. Notams, weather etc all would be taken care of by ATC and provided to the pilot. This continual resistance that it was all too hard for an experienced pilot is just baffling. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
The mayday seemed clear enough . It was issued on behalf of an aircraft that had gone down. ATC appears to have understood that, evidenced by issue of a non emergency transponder code.. The surviving aircraft’s pilot stated his intention to return to Essendon. Unless asked for advice, the last thing ATC would do is confuse the situation by suggesting alternatives, and ADDING to the pilot’s workload with additional frequency changes, notams, weather etc , neither needed nor called for.

[Mr Mossberg]

How about we all stop replying and just let Georgee, Wetdream and Squaaawk go back and forth to convince each other how professional they themselves are and how they are the airmanship heroes and rest of us stupid plods who know nothing just rest on our thoughts that Viper 1 did a commendable job.

​​​​​​​Hang on mate, you don't like my fly to the desert saltpan idea??

[MMSOB]

I very rarely post, and do not engage in 'tit for tat' exchanges. However, I feel obliged to comment on this crash, given that in my relative youth I spent an awful lot of time in close proximity to multiple fast jets (and moreso than simply being in the gaggle during visual RTB manoeuvres). No, I was not a Macchi Rouletter.
I am quite surprised that no-one with a mil background has mentioned the Mayday Relay option; aircraft A transmitting on behalf of aircraft B, in distress. Had I been in the boots of the unfortunate Viper 1, I suspect my initial call would have been along these lines:
"Mayday relay, mayday relay, mayday relay. Viper 1 and Viper 2 mid-air collision. Viper 2 appears to have impacted the water. Viper 1 suspect only minor damage my aircraft. Standby for further."
This is not meant as any criticism of Viper 1's actions. I am not a party to the Kangaroo Court.

[josephfeatherweight]

I very rarely post, and do not engage in 'tit for tat' exchanges. However, I feel obliged to comment on this crash, given that in my relative youth I spent an awful lot of time in close proximity to multiple fast jets (and moreso than simply being in the gaggle during visual RTB manoeuvres). No, I was not a Macchi Rouletter.
I am quite surprised that no-one with a mil background has mentioned the Mayday Relay option; aircraft A transmitting on behalf of aircraft B, in distress. Had I been in the boots of the unfortunate Viper 1, I suspect my initial call would have been along these lines:
"Mayday relay, mayday relay, mayday relay. Viper 1 and Viper 2 mid-air collision. Viper 2 appears to have impacted the water. Viper 1 suspect only minor damage my aircraft. Standby for further."
This is not meant as any criticism of Viper 1's actions. I am not a party to the Kangaroo Court.
Have flown a few hours in (RAAF) military formation (as a student and instructing) and have never heard the R/T phrase "Mayday relay..." - I reckon I would have transmitted pretty much the same as Viper 1 - he's calling a Mayday on behalf of the formation.
If I saw ANOTHER aircraft spud into the water, even if it was not a member of my formation, my radio call would commence with "Mayday, mayday, mayday."
I'm pretty sure this is covered somewhere earlier in the thread, where it says that the call "Mayday" is to transmit emergency information relating to an extremely serious situation where loss of life is imminent or expected (not the exact words, just the thrust of it) - it doesn't have to be for the aircraft transmitting.
Having said that, "Mayday relay" also makes sense - just haven't heard of it...

EDIT - AIP says this:
MAYDAY: My aircraft and its occupants are threatened by grave and imminent danger and/or I require immediate assistance.
I read this as, "OR I require immediate assistance to assist another aircraft that just splashed into the water."

[megan]

joseph, it may well be that he put the mayday out immediately after the collision, not knowing the extent of damage to his own aircraft at that instant, only knowing that collisions can end badly, you're in a situation where you don't have time to faff about, once the mayday is out you can take stock, the Roulettes had a few collisions in their time, some fatal. Just been talking to a pal about a Mirage pilot I rescued and a double fatality Roulette accident where he found one of the pilots who later died in hospital.

Only ever had one mayday in my time, engine failure taking off from an oil rig, chap in the other seat put out a mayday and I never knew, being other wise occupied, neither of us knew whether we would end up in the water or not, time is not always on your side. Alex Crawford if you're reading, top job my man.

[donpizmeov]

I very rarely post, and do not engage in 'tit for tat' exchanges. However, I feel obliged to comment on this crash, given that in my relative youth I spent an awful lot of time in close proximity to multiple fast jets (and moreso than simply being in the gaggle during visual RTB manoeuvres). No, I was not a Macchi Rouletter.
I am quite surprised that no-one with a mil background has mentioned the Mayday Relay option; aircraft A transmitting on behalf of aircraft B, in distress. Had I been in the boots of the unfortunate Viper 1, I suspect my initial call would have been along these lines:
"Mayday relay, mayday relay, mayday relay. Viper 1 and Viper 2 mid-air collision. Viper 2 appears to have impacted the water. Viper 1 suspect only minor damage my aircraft. Standby for further."
This is not meant as any criticism of Viper 1's actions. I am not a party to the Kangaroo Court.


Fr​​om fishhead days we used Mayday relay when a Mayday was heard by us but not the boat/ATC due to distance etc.

[VH-MLE]

Personally, I'm finding the discussion on whether a Mayday call (or the format of the distress message) that should, or shouldn't have have been issued, largely irrelevant. The point of the call was to advise ATC that another aircraft was in "grave an imminent danger" & that message was relayed to ATC so that SAR actions could be immediately implemented - which they were. Regarding where the "surviving" aircraft elected to proceed, a decision was made in a very short time frame by the PIC & I wouldn't dare question that decision, because I was not there & don't know the thought processes of those involved. Once again, a decision was made & that decision appears sound to me, from what I have read so far...

[Lead Balloon]

Here's an idea: Mayday (and Pan) calls should initially go to an automated call centre.

Pleasant female voice recording:Please listen to all the following options, because they may have changed since you last contacted us with a problem.

If your Mayday / Pan call is about your aircraft or someone in it, press your transmit key once.

If your Mayday / Pan call is about some other aircraft or person, press your transmit key twice.

If you're busy managing some problem, please monitor this frequency until the next available controller can respond to your call.

I've read lots of bull**** on lots of PPRuNe threads over a couple of decades. The accumulation of some of the bull**** on this thread means it may achieve G(BT)OAT.

[Capt Fathom]

Come on mods. Shut it down!

[john_tullamarine]

Perhaps we've exhausted the mayday deliberations and can move on to other matters associated with the mishap ?

[By George]

A single engine jet is designed to operate with live seats. If this aircraft had these, two fine individuals would still be with us. Why is there so much opposition to live seats in a civilian operation? Is it the storage and handling of explosive charges? Lack of technical support staff? The safety authority removing a level of safety is an odd outcome for operating ex-military jets.

[john_tullamarine]

Perhaps we've exhausted the mayday deliberations and can move on to other matters associated with the mishap ?

If I may rephrase that ... there has been more than an adequate range of comments regarding Mayday calls.

George, Certainly a lack of specialist LSE folk in civvy street and it would take a few changes in the CASA paradigm ... for a very few hulls. Can't see much interest from Furzer Street.

[Squawk7700]

If the Cirrus dealerships can get approvals for the rocket / chute re-pack you’d think it would be possible, however I’m sure it would be a matter of supply and demand and I can’t see there being a huge demand for Martin Baker seats. There would be something like half a dozen L39’s operating I guess too.

[compressor stall]

Military airworthiness and crashworthiness.

Civvy aircraft are designed to a set of standards (egFAR25) that determine levels of crashworthiness. Eg seat loading, head strike etc.

I assume military would be made to another standard, if so does that standard vary if you have an ejection seat or not? Eg. If no MB ejector seat, you have to have say 16G, but if you do, equivalent level of safety says it only needs to be say 4G?

[Capt Fathom]

I think there is a slight difference between Cirrus launching a parachute from their aircraft versus a rocket propelled ejection seat through the canopy of a retired military jet.

[Squawk7700]

I think there is a slight difference between Cirrus launching a parachute from their aircraft versus a rocket propelled ejection seat through the canopy of a retired military jet.

Quite the contrary, it’s all about the acquisition, disposal and safe handling of the rocket fuel that’s the issue. It’s very potent. As you can imagine, our regulator requires specific skills and approvals for the handling.

[megan]

A single engine jet is designed to operate with live seats. If this aircraft had these, two fine individuals would still be with us. Why is there so much opposition to live seats in a civilian operation? Is it the storage and handling of explosive charges? Lack of technical support staff? The safety authority removing a level of safety is an odd outcome for operating ex-military jets.Back when ex mil jets first appeared on the scene a CASA rep, whose name I don't recall, said it was to ensure that owners didn't shirk on maintenance, how serious he was no idea. lost a compatriot in the Canberra Mig, one of our ex A-4 pilot/instructor.

[PiperCameron]

Back when ex mil jets first appeared on the scene a CASA rep, whose name I don't recall, said it was to ensure that owners didn't shirk on maintenance, how serious he was no idea. lost a compatriot in the Canberra Mig, one of our ex A-4 pilot/instructor.

There's that.. but there's also at least some level of training required to ensure said ejectee (and the other guy, if it's a 2-person ship) isn't killed or seriously maimed by the ejection sequence itself - and I don't suppose that's training you can get outside of the military. AIUI, without proper training, in some aircraft if everything went great you might only lose your legs, but if you didn't have enough altitude for the parachute to work (or know how to land under a parachute) you'd quite likely be dead anyway.

Since the civilian world means you're not operating in a war zone, CASA probably consider the risk of something going wrong with the seat or it's use means it's better odds to stay with the ship and force-land.

There's a great book on the subject fresh on the shelves: https://www.amazon.com.au/Eject-John-Nichol-ebook/dp/B0BC9WXWWK

[SpazSinbad]

Back when ex mil jets first appeared on the scene a CASA rep, whose name I don't recall, said it was to ensure that owners didn't shirk on maintenance, how serious he was no idea. lost a compatriot in the Canberra Mig, one of our ex A4[G] pilot/instructor.
'CLUMP's' MiG-15 (owned by a car dealer) was fraudulently represented as flyable when it really was only a 'museum piece'. The owner & pilots ('Hammo' & 'Ezza') did not know this before the fatal accident.

Canberra Times 22 Jul 1995 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/128288929

MiG-15 UTI Accident Report PDF (0.33Mb) : aair199300484_001.pdf (atsb.gov.au) (https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/24910/aair199300484_001.pdf)

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1100x786/carol_d10_mig_15_report_news_661042b5e2696a91d3758e6fc12f457 393bd020c.jpg

[helispotter]

There has been a fair bit of discussion on this thread about ejection seats, whether or not fitted on the lost S-211, and the local regulatory position.

In post #53 by ahwalk01, a link to a video of the lost aircraft is provided. At 45:26 into that video the passenger makes a passing reference to not having to use the Mk10 ejection seats as if they were still available for ejection at the time. But I didn't see any obvious ejection seat handles in the video. Can someone say with certainty whether or not the seats were still available for ejection on this aircraft? I realise ATSB will clarify this in a future report.

In the post #341 by SpazSinbad, a link is provided to the revised accident report for VH-LSN in March 1993. Under the section '1.15 Survival aspects' they write:

"The MiG 15UTI was fitted by the manufacturer with ejection seats. Operational specifications concerning the ejection seats were not available. The ejection seats were disarmed in VH-LSN and the pilot was aware that he did not have an ejection capability. CAA regulations permitted the seats to be armed in those instances where the owner/operator could comply with specific requirements. At the time of the occurrence none of the operators of MiG 15 aircraft in Australia maintained an ejection seat capability in their aircraft".

So at least back then CAA (now CASA) didn't have a blanked ban on use of ejection seats on civil registered aircraft. That may have changed, but if so it would be worth hearing from others who know about any such changes.

[junior.VH-LFA]

There has been a fair bit of discussion on this thread about ejection seats, whether or not fitted on the lost S-211, and the local regulatory position.

In post #53 by ahwalk01, a link to a video of the lost aircraft is provided. At 45:26 into that video the passenger makes a passing reference to not having to use the Mk10 ejection seats as if they were still available for ejection at the time. But I didn't see any obvious ejection seat handles in the video. Can someone say with certainty whether or not the seats were still available for ejection on this aircraft? I realise ATSB will clarify this in a future report.

In the post #341 by SpazSinbad, a link is provided to the revised accident report for VH-LSN in March 1993. Under the section '1.15 Survival aspects' they write:

"The MiG 15UTI was fitted by the manufacturer with ejection seats. Operational specifications concerning the ejection seats were not available. The ejection seats were disarmed in VH-LSN and the pilot was aware that he did not have an ejection capability. CAA regulations permitted the seats to be armed in those instances where the owner/operator could comply with specific requirements. At the time of the occurrence none of the operators of MiG 15 aircraft in Australia maintained an ejection seat capability in their aircraft".

So at least back then CAA (now CASA) didn't have a blanked ban on use of ejection seats on civil registered aircraft. That may have changed, but if so it would be worth hearing from others who know about any such changes.

The seats were absolutely and unequivocably inert. This has been stated by people in this thread already who are familiar with the aircraft directly

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

In post #53 by ahwalk01, a link to a video of the lost aircraft is provided. At 45:26 into that video the passenger makes a passing reference to not having to use the Mk10 ejection seats as if they were still available for ejection at the time. But I didn't see any obvious ejection seat handles in the video. Can someone say with certainty whether or not the seats were still available for ejection on this aircraft? I realise ATSB will clarify this in a future report.

Unlike earlier seats like the Mk,4, the Mk.10 doesn’t have a face-blind handle, just one at the front of the seat pan. You can see this at around the 8 minute mark in the video. Totally unrelated to whether the seat’s still active, of course.

[helispotter]

The seats were absolutely and unequivocably inert. This has been stated by people in this thread already who are familiar with the aircraft directly

Yep, sorry, now refreshed my memory re your post #77 and other posts like #91, #98. Also realised Clinton McKenzie had explained the hurdles in maintaining operational ejection seats in #61 which seems to answer my other question.

[SpazSinbad]

Unlike earlier seats like the Mk,4, the Mk.10 doesn’t have a face-blind handle, just one at the front of the seat pan. You can see this at around the 8 minute mark in the video. Totally unrelated to whether the seat’s still active, of course.
ONE handle to rool them all: :} (14Mb FREE PDF S211 PAF Flight Manual 08 Mar 1994)
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ece8803c0e6c02242f70bc0/t/5f39c0941902447baae19c75/1597620406010/S211_PAF_flight_manual.pdf

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1645x1050/mb_mk10_firing_handle_s211_paf_flight_manual_684bfa7a8642731 13ba033797df54cb28d955eb7.gif

[georgeeipi]

'CLUMP's' MiG-15 (owned by a car dealer) was fraudulently represented as flyable when it really was only a 'museum piece'. The owner & pilots ('Hammo' & 'Ezza') did not know this before the fatal accident.

MiG-15 UTI Accident Report PDF (0.33Mb) : aair199300484_001.pdf (atsb.gov.au) (https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/24910/aair199300484_001.pdf)

Does anyone here know what happened to IR930105 from this report? In particular regarding bringing together all the FOIs, CAOs, CARs into a single document and "...This single document should be made available to the public"

[Lead Balloon]

In relation to Martin Baker ejection seats in particular, I think the company gave notice, in around 2018, that it wouldn’t be providing spares support for ‘historical’ seats. As I recall, that caused some complexity for the Sabre operated by Temora Aviation Museum. TAM had spares for the seats in the Meteor (or was it Vampire?). These may have been among the complexities that resulted in it all being eventually moved into 100SQN RAAF. But I have no first-hand knowledge of the details of the circumstances.

As far as I am aware, no passengers were carried in ejection seat fitted aircraft while they were being operated by TAM (assuming the aircraft had the capacity).

[Squawk7700]

Those circumstances were about enthusiasm and cash.

[georgeeipi]

'CLUMP's' MiG-15 (owned by a car dealer) was fraudulently represented as flyable when it really was only a 'museum piece'. The owner & pilots ('Hammo' & 'Ezza') did not know this before the fatal accident.

Canberra Times 22 Jul 1995 https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/128288929

MiG-15 UTI Accident Report PDF (0.33Mb) : aair199300484_001.pdf (atsb.gov.au) (https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/24910/aair199300484_001.pdf)



It looks like CASA didn't act on the ATSB recommendation IR930105 to bring together all the rules and regulations regarding certification of ex military aircraft, but the FAA did. They published a book on it:

https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Civil_Airworthiness_Certification.html?id=LyBQBwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y

[georgeeipi]

The big fellas drop stuff on the suburbs as well up to and including engine pods, most damaging was a 747 shedding two pods then the airframe crashing into a block of apartments resulting in a large death toll, should ALL aircraft be banned from over flying the suburbs on that basis? More to worry about is a motor vehicle parking in your bedroom, happens on a regular basis.Particularly when that command decision produces an outcome of no consequence, I can't believe the Avalon discussion going on here, I'd expect better from experienced aviators - sorry.

Well maybe you should read https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Civil_Airworthiness_Certification.html?id=LyBQBwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
The FAA doesn't think flight of ex-military aircraft over populated areas is a minor issue, far from it, they identify it as the major issue. So why people here think it's ok to drop stuff on populated areas is one of the great mysteries.
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1408x1800/populated_areas_c3167973139f2b94f44349ea9f67161f60227cce.png

[43Inches]

Far more light GA types have crashed into houses and suburban areas than any ex military jets. Even airliners, the last aircraft to hit buildings near Essendon was a relatively new Kingair. Maybe we should just ban all aviation over populated areas and let cars and trucks be the only home wrecking vehicles. These arguments are just fear-mongering rubbish. There are far more deaths on the few kms of freeway passing by the airport than occur due to airport operations, maybe you should cry to ban Freeways.

PS This accident most likely was a result of a midair collision, during filming airwork, where the aircraft were already operating in an area remote from populated areas. There is no evidence that these aircraft were not capable of operating safely in day to day normal operations.

The crew were possibly worried about small parts coming off during landing that would pose a threat to other aircraft, in the way of FOD ingestion or tyre damage, not wings and major componants falling off. Therefore any threat to persons on the ground was minimal from falling objects. You'd be more likely to be killed by a tyre coming loose from a truck and hitting you, which actually happened on the ring road nearby not long ago.

[josephfeatherweight]

So why people here think it's ok to drop stuff on populated areas is one of the great mysteries.

Who said that?

[georgeeipi]

Who said that?

Go back and look at the quote from my previous post, that was "Megan". There are a few others as well if you go further up the thread.
They confuse regular GA and airline ops with FAA part 91 ops and in Australia Part 132 operations. The FAA risk analysis of their ex military aircraft ops is thorough and can't be dismissed as simply "fear-mongering rubbish" as 43Inches is trying to say in his edited response. Perhaps some here don't like being confronted by a risk analysis? Or they have never seen one before? But there it is in the FAA book. Ex military aircraft ops are inherently riskier ops than normal GA and airline ops and, in the US and Australia they are more tightly controlled.

[junior.VH-LFA]

The document you posted quotes the S-211 has having a reduced risk as a small aircraft. You're quoting a document that is referring to aircraft like MIG-23's and F-4's with engine driven hydraulic powered flight controls that can not be controlled in the event of an engine failure and that are substantially heavier and more complex and trying to apply it to a light trainer jet with no powered flight controls that was fully controllable.

The AWAL permit index system applies restrictions to warbird aircraft based on their complexity, known history and risk factor. The S211, like the L-39, has no overflight restrictions and more often than not are Permit Index 0 (no limitations). Perhaps you should read up on limited category aircraft in Australia. Your assumption that warbirds have not been regulated here or aren't risk managed is absurd.

https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/sport-aviation/limited-category-aircraft-operations#Relatedcontent

[43Inches]

Go back and look at the quote from my previous post, that was "Megan". There are a few others as well if you go further up the thread.
They confuse regular GA and airline ops with FAA part 91 ops and in Australia Part 132 operations. The FAA risk analysis of their ex military aircraft ops is thorough and can't be dismissed as simply "fear-mongering rubbish" as 43Inches is trying to say in his edited response. Perhaps some here don't like being confronted by a risk analysis? Or they have never seen one before? But there it is in the FAA book. Ex military aircraft ops are inherently riskier ops than normal GA and airline ops and, in the US and Australia they are more tightly controlled.

Unfortunately your so called "risk analysis" is what is killing aviation, especially the GA sector. It's not based on evidence, but on speculation of what could happen. You can harp on about it all you want, but reality is these aircraft involved in this accident do not have any sort of record that would indicate they are less safe than the average single engine piston aircraft that flies out of Essendon. Therefore you are just fear-mongering 'what ifs' that could happen, but probably never will. Unfortunately you are the same ilk that have produced the motorcycle shredders surrounding every major road in Victoria now, because of the 'what if' of a vehicle leaving the hard surface. Billions of dollars wasted, billions more to be wasted as every time a low speed off road adventure happens that would have been just a few embarrassing grass stains ends up in thousands of dollars of repairs, slowed traffic around the works (almost daily on every stretch of highway) and thousands of carbon emmissions and wwasted $$$ from the waiting traffic. The statistical evidence they have done much to alter the road toll, NIL, in fact since they have been introduced the road toll has not changed considerably at all, the claims by the government that they have saved more lives on the road per year than the actual road toll has ever been????

I would not even classify the S-211 as a warbird, it's a basic jet trainer. I also want to know what distance you would prevent these jets from flying near a town, or such, the recent F-35 ejection had the aircraft travel 100km from where the pilot left it.

The reason I laugh at these rules is simply they are to stop the average Joe from looking up and seeing something they don't like, and have next to no safety benefit. "OMG a jet just flew over my house" complain, complain, "what if it crashes, OMG OMG". FAA/CASA response, lets just move the flight path so they don't notice it, not that its less likely to spear off that path and still land on your house.... Planes don't crash straight down, they tend to veer off and aim for day cares and hospitals for children.

[junior.VH-LFA]

We should be aiming at making the system even safer, not just accepting the status quo.

What part of the system has been proven unsafe here? Or as safe as reasonably practical?

[43Inches]

There is a big difference between effective accident investigations revealing shortcomings that have led to accidents and pedant civil servents using 'risk management' to cancel everything that has risk. The later is what is occuring in todays world. Any activity has risk, right now the pedants have too much control resulting in major failures in addressing the real risks in aviation. Simple things like the hi viz brigade more worried about the shade of day glo yellow vs focusing on pilots stick and rudder and weather awareness skills. Or those on here that are more worried about the exact content of a mayday vs just flying safely home.

[georgeeipi]

Enough of the maydays, please, guys.

[Capt Fathom]

Who is Melbourne Control?

[43Inches]

Enough of the maydays, please, guys.

[Cedrik]

If you don't even know the basic terminology used for control services I'm not sure how you can then want to be pedantic about a radio call that achieved the outcome that was required.
You forgot to critique his grammar

[43Inches]

Please take your handbags and have the fight elsewhere

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I’d still like to know exactly who ‘Melbourne Control’ is…

[john_tullamarine]

I'm not one to indulge in itinerant banning but this is getting close to needing something along those lines, methinks. Can we just cool things down a bit, guys, and agree to disagree.

[Capt Fathom]

Yeah, sure, bully boy moderator uncritically steps in and kills the whole thing completely unaware of the concept of strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks, as if discussing maydays and emergencies is a taboo subject. Pprune has become one screwed up forum.

Participation is voluntary!

[Mr Mossberg]

How do you post memes? The one where Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus does the thumbs down. In this case to george

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

To be honest, the ‘bully boy moderator’ probably should just kill the whole thing off. It’s just the same monomaniacal stuff being pushed over and over again, around and around we go, with nothing of value being achieved. Maybe start it up again when someone like the ATSB actually has some facts to offer and something worthwhile to contribute.

[First_Principal]

To be honest, the ‘bully boy moderator’ probably should just kill the whole thing off...

I 'liked' JT's post because of the reasonable request along with the restraint he showed. That said, given the subsequent post by one person, I think I'd also 'like' it if they had a little time on their own to cool off.

It should be remembered that the root cause of this discussion is the untimely death of two people, and the horrific impact on the lives of many others. While I don't subscribe to the view that such things shouldn't be discussed it behoves us well to be respectful in our interaction. Shame on those of you who should have learnt about this sort of behaviour in the playground many years ago, it does us all a disservice :(

[grizzled]

I 'liked' JT's post because of the reasonable request along with the restraint he showed. That said, given the subsequent post by one person, I think I'd also 'like' it if they had a little time on their own to cool off.

It should be remembered that the root cause of this discussion is the untimely death of two people, and the horrific impact on the lives of many others. While I don't subscribe to the view that such things shouldn't be discussed it behoves us well to be respectful in our interaction. Shame on those of you who should have learnt about this sort of behaviour in the playground many years ago, it does us all a disservice :(

I too am impressed with the restraint showed by JT. Ironically, it is georgeeipi's post that is screwed up, as well as childish and plain old rude. Even more importantly, the reason for this thread, as FP mentions, is directly the result of the deaths of two people, which places g......pi's post past the disrespectful toward the abhorrent.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Preliminary report has been released.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2024/report/ao-2023-057

[KRviator]

UUmm....What was the Viper 1 "Safety Pilot" doing?!?The occupants of Viper 1 felt the collision but did not observe it.I can understand the handling pilot not seeing it, but the GIB?

[ozbiggles]

UUmm....What was the Viper 1 "Safety Pilot" doing?!?I can understand the handling pilot not seeing it, but the GIB?
I don’t think you understand why the safety pilot was there….it’s in the report, nothing to do with the formation part.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

It’s also a moot point, IMHO. I don’t think there’s anything much either pilot in Viper 1 could’ve done to avoid that collision. Inverted as they were, the only place they could’ve gone in a hurry was down - right where Viper 2 was, and not helpful. For me, this was a rapidly-developing situation where they had few/no options available to them. The fact is that as formation lead, there are times when you have to place complete faith in the other formation members not to hit you.

[KRviator]

I don’t think you understand why the safety pilot was there….it’s in the report, nothing to do with the formation part.No no, I do get that it's nowt to do with actually flying in formation - we can all do that solo afterall - and that the PIC of Viper 1 needed to fly with a Safety Pilot due his C2, but surely an Ex-Mil jet pilot, as the SP is reported to be, would understand that when you're flying formation one of the main goals is to avoid swapping paint, so the front seater flies, the back seater monitors the wingman's rejoin. If you're a safety pilot, that close to another airplane and you're not actually watching it, I'm curious as to what they were doing?

[Bug]

UUmm....What was the Viper 1 "Safety Pilot" doing?!?I can understand the handling pilot not seeing it, but the GIB?
I wonder if the GIB was the handling pilot, given the TV program was to follow a student pilot learning to fly a small jet trainer, with a highly experienced ex Roulette pilot the other person in that aircraft doing complex formation flying for filming purpose.

[Lookleft]

If you're a safety pilot, that close to another airplane and you're not actually watching it, I'm curious as to what they were doing?

Probably trying to work out what V2 was doing! It looks like passing underneath V1 was not briefed so trying to second guess what came next would have been very difficult in real time. It would seem that it was very lucky for the crew of V1 that they were not casualties 3 and 4

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

I wonder if the GIB was the handling pilot, given the TV program was to follow a student pilot learning to fly a small jet trainer, with a highly experienced ex Roulette pilot the other person in that aircraft doing complex formation flying for filming purpose.

Both crew in Viper 1 were highly experienced ex Roulettes pilots.

KRaviator, if you consider that Viper 1 was inverted, with Viper 2 below, mostly behind, and crossing sides, it would be difficult to constantly monitor them. And even if you could, I doubt you’d have been able to avert this particular collision.

[heretolearn]

According to the ATSB video :

Viper 2 was planned/briefed to stay to one side and clear of viper 1 during any manoeuvres and for the shot.

Viper 2 did the fly under manoeuvre unbriefed the first time.

The safety pilot on V1 pointed this out to the pilot who then had a discussion with Viper 2 who explained that that manoeuvre provided a better shot and they agreed to try it again. (Anyone want to bet ‘what the f#ck is he doing’ was muttered by someone on V1?)

During the second attempt they had the impact.

[Kulwin Park]

Interesting read. The manoeuvers were not sudden or high speed, however they got caught out.
The picture would indicate a stuck aileron, with a roll that they could not get out of. Just my read on it though.

[georgeeipi]

I too am impressed with the restraint showed by JT. Ironically, it is georgeeipi's post that is screwed up, as well as childish and plain old rude. Even more importantly, the reason for this thread, as FP mentions, is directly the result of the deaths of two people, which places g......pi's post past the disrespectful toward the abhorrent.
Easy to say whatever you want to believe without substantiating it and using your bully moderator friend to cover for you.
No one has pointed anything out that I said that was rude. And I quite clearly said I wasn't criticizing the pilot but asking the question what would WE do now with that lesson.
Say what you like, believe what you want. And then claim to be professional. Sure thing.

[helispotter]

...The picture would indicate a stuck aileron, with a roll that they could not get out of. Just my read on it though.

Figure 10 in the report shows two frames from the video taken from the surviving Viper 1 (VH-DQJ). Wing damage on Viper 2 (VH-DZJ) is significant with ATSB reporting separation of the lower wing skin (which can be seen clearly) aside from likely damage to the right aileron controls.

In contrast, the damage to the wing of Viper 2 appeared to be much more superficial from the photos shown in the report.

[Chronic Snoozer]

No no, I do get that it's nowt to do with actually flying in formation - we can all do that solo afterall - and that the PIC of Viper 1 needed to fly with a Safety Pilot due his C2, but surely an Ex-Mil jet pilot, as the SP is reported to be, would understand that when you're flying formation one of the main goals is to avoid swapping paint, so the front seater flies, the back seater monitors the wingman's rejoin. If you're a safety pilot, that close to another airplane and you're not actually watching it, I'm curious as to what they were doing?

Why are you curious? The SP is rear seat, inverted, observing another aircraft manoeuvre and monitoring the flying pilot/aircraft performance, with the associated difficulties of doing that whilst inverted. (2nd flight in an S211 according to the report) #2 avoids #1 so on the first photo pass, the evidence is that #2 was being monitored, SP pipes up as it was an unbriefed manoeuvre. On the second photo pass, (not a rejoin), what is it you are suggesting the SP should have been doing? Do you think #2 was in direct line of sight for the entire time? It’s all in the report.

[Squawk7700]

It seemed like a relatively straight forward sequence when it was explained in the video and you’d wonder how you could make a mistake, however in some of their videos online they were conducted a lot faster than I personally envisioned. You’d need to see the actual video to get a true understanding.

I’m guessing that the extent of the damage indicates a collision at a high speed of convergence as otherwise you’d think it would simply brush off the other aircraft. It really has torn a hell of a hole in the wing.

[josephfeatherweight]

It seemed like a relatively straight forward sequence when it was explained in the video
Passing directly underneath another aircraft for a station change is actually quite difficult. "Normal" station changes from echelon to either line-astern or opposite echelon have the aircraft drop down and back slightly before moving laterally.
When you pass directly underneath, there is limited scope to assess vertical closure, which appears to have happened in this case. Certainly not something you'd try unbriefed.

[43Inches]

I’m guessing that the extent of the damage indicates a collision at a high speed of convergence as otherwise you’d think it would simply brush off the other aircraft. It really has torn a hell of a hole in the wing.

Doesn't need to be high speed impact at all, brush against the wrong rivets, expose a bit of the panel forward, and the airflow at jet speeds will do the rest. Same as not latching the front of a Warrior cowl, once a bit of airflow gets under it will peel back over the windscreen. With thin wings deformed panels as depicted will make it very difficult to control and act like a speed brake with a nose down moment. There's also the airflow disruption around the ailerons to add to the yaw and roll towards the damaged part. In that scenario you'd almost want the entire section to break free, not peel back and create drag, which is probably the worst case. Cases where aircraft have returned with severe battle damage it's more whole sections have departed, rather than remained attached.

ASA 529 is a good example, where a propeller failed on an EMB-120. It partially broke off and lodged sideways deforming the engine cowl and leading edges, enough that the aircraft could not even achieve a reasonable shallow descent with MCP on the live engine and had to ditch in a forest clearing. Compared to the two SAAB 340 events where propellers completely separated and fell clear of the airframe with minor damage and crew reported fairly good performance on one engine and landed without incident.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Doesn't need to be high speed impact at all, brush against the wrong rivets

It’s the rate of convergence not “speed” that’s the catalyst for damage, which is what Squawk meant I believe.

The rate of vertical closure can be estimated between photos B and D of the third pass, then add the rate of roll.

[43Inches]

It’s the rate of convergence not “speed” that’s the catalyst for damage, which is what Squawk meant I believe.

The rate of vertical closure can be estimated between photos B and D of the third pass, then add the rate of roll.

Even so, if the rate of convergence was 'high' then the probability of severe damage to the other aircraft would also have been high. I do not think it was a large shunt, just very unlucky for the downed aircraft in the mechanism involved and the relative contact points. Obviously there must have been some decent amount of convergence to create the damage, but considering the load on the surviving aircraft was akin to negative load to the spar and structure, it can't have been a big hit. Considering the paint and damage to the surviving aircraft was on the top surface, (whilst inverted) then the wings must have collided, slid against each other then as the contact continued it's ripped part of the leading edge and wing tip downward, to create the damage observed. I'm no expert on it, but just what it looks like to me from the pictures. I suppose the natural reaction would make the situation worse, by wanting to roll away from the other aircraft, which would increase contact.

[Chronic Snoozer]

I'm no expert on it

Copy.

[43Inches]

I had to add that, some seem to think that opinions on an anonymous forum are somehow experts challenging each other.

BTW, my original comment was that it does not need to be high speed contact, not that it wasn't. It was not stating that they are wrong, just that it might not be the case and my reasoning.

[megan]

For the purposes of the filming sequence avoidance of collision would have been Viper2's responsibility, since he was the one doing the maneuvering to get the film "shot".

Flying formation one intransgressable rule was "Never take your eyes off lead", similarly in this case it would have been Viper2's responsibility never to take his eyes off Viper1.

Even with eyes on one can make errors of judgement - closure rates.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae9YnDuOPOI

[Squawk7700]

On the face of it, it sounds crazy that if you’re underneath and looking up that they could have even come close to the inverted one, let alone hit it.

I’m betting that if the footage is ever released it will show a high speed re-positioning manoeuvre.

[43Inches]

All we know so far from the report;

As with the previous attempt, Viper 2 moved rearward to allow Viper 1 to roll inverted. As Viper 1 stabilised in the inverted attitude (panel A in Figure 4), Viper 2 began manoeuvring to pass beneath Viper 1 (panel B in Figure 4). Viper 1 then stabilised in the inverted attitude and as Viper 2 approached, the vertical separation between the 2 aircraft reduced. Viper 2 passed beneath and began to pitch up and bank away from Viper 1 (panel C in Figure 4). At 1333, as Viper 2 climbed and banked left, the right wings of each aircraft collided (panel D in Figure 4)..

From that, and the images it seems V2 simply pitched up too early before they were clear and made wingtip contact, it mentions banking left, but it had hardly started that from the pictures. The pictures seem to indicate V2 started from behind abeam, meaning V1 had limited sighting, probably even less so hanging inverted. So V2 moved from behind abeam, underneath and then pitched up and a shallow bank as they moved from underneath.

On the face of it, it sounds crazy that if you’re underneath and looking up that they could have even come close to the inverted one, let alone hit it.

That might be part of the issue, the pilot of V1 is probably 100% focused on flying inverted level, with the safety on lookout, no external distractions to his flying. V2 has a camera operator/safety, who is filming, so the pilot is flying the manoeuvre and looking up for the separation aspect, we all know the body follows the eyes/head movement, ie you go where you look, if you are not careful, so it is very easy to impart rearward movement on the controls each time you look up, especially considering how far you'd have to tilt your head to observe an aircraft directly above you.

I've done similar manoeuvres underneath aircraft in formation, albeit much slower machines and not involving an inverted aircraft, and were quite conscious that the lead was maintaining straight and level ahead, as they had no sighting on us, and that we had outs, as well as moved well clear before attempting movement towards/through the targets level.

It might just come down to a 'went off plan' accident, where everything to be done was briefed and discussed and then V1 has decided to vary the play book and a few critical things were not thrashed out.

In any case it looks like the ATSB has a lot of information on this accident, and the final report should be fairly thorough with lots of answers.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

On the face of it, it sounds crazy that if you’re underneath and looking up that they could have even come close to the inverted one, let alone hit it.


With no background visual references (and your head looking at an awkward and unusual angle), depth perception and judgement of closure can be quite a bit more difficult, if you’re not used to it. Add in the fact that you’re fixating on a particular object, and you can suddenly find yourself approaching that object surprisingly quickly.

Without knowing what was briefed or the specifics of what actually happened here, I’ll add that this type of flying isn’t the time to be making it up as you go along.

[Capt Fathom]

Things can sneak up on you…

DjU4cWDRwKI

[compressor stall]

Holy c rap. Never seen that footage before.

Was there actual contact? The shudder suggests so but not the in frame visual. Or was the shudder wake?

[Squawk7700]

Or was the shudder wake?

I reckon that was the camera operator realising things were about to turn very pear-shaped.

[megan]

Old thread here

https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/469304-nah-really.html

One problem with photographic work is the photographer asking the pilot to do something to get a better shot which encroaches on safety, the pilot needs to have the spine to offer an alternative or refuse the request, has caused accidents in the past, nothing new.

[Biscuit501]

Noticed something in flight manual provided earlier in this feed regarding Inverted flight limitations, maybe this had a bearing on the accident. (See page 7 of the manual in the Operational supplement section) maybe he was inverted for longer than 30 seconds, the engine coughed and he panicked to get upright again and hit the other aircraft?

[junior.VH-LFA]

Noticed something in flight manual provided earlier in this feed regarding Inverted flight limitations, maybe this had a bearing on the accident. (See page 7 of the manual in the Operational supplement section) maybe he was inverted for longer than 30 seconds, the engine coughed and he panicked to get upright again and hit the other aircraft?

It's written in black and white in the prelim report that that is not what happened.

"As Viper 1 stabilised in the inverted attitude (panel A in Figure 4), Viper 2 began manoeuvring to pass beneath Viper 1 (panel B in Figure 4). Viper 1 then stabilised in the inverted attitude and as Viper 2 approached, the vertical separation between the 2 aircraft reduced."

[Biscuit501]

Maybe not what happened but possibly why it happened?

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Maybe not what happened but possibly why it happened?

Is there anything at all to suggest this might be the case, or is it just a random thought bubble?

[43Inches]

Noticed something in flight manual provided earlier in this feed regarding Inverted flight limitations, maybe this had a bearing on the accident. (See page 7 of the manual in the Operational supplement section) maybe he was inverted for longer than 30 seconds, the engine coughed and he panicked to get upright again and hit the other aircraft?

If you read the pre-lim report then you would have seen the actual pictures of the contact. Viper 1 was still in the inverted position when contact occured, there was no 'panicked' roll evident. The report states Viper 2 climbed and rolled from under Viper 1and contact was made. There would have been mention of any notable flight path changes made by Viper 1 as they have video evidence of the whole sequence.

[PiperCameron]

If you read the pre-lim report then you would have seen the actual pictures of the contact. Viper 1 was still in the inverted position when contact occured, there was no 'panicked' roll evident. The report states Viper 2 climbed and rolled from under Viper 1and contact was made. There would have been mention of any notable flight path changes made by Viper 1 as they have video evidence of the whole sequence.

Assuming the plan was for Viper 1 to get B-Roll footage of Viper 2 (from above moving against the sea), inverted flight is certainly an unconventional way to do it. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to operate a stabilised pro camera above your head upside down! Everyone else I know would get a CASA dispensation to temporarily fit a camera beneath the aircraft - for safety reasons, if nothing else - and fly upright.

Perhaps their budget didn't stretch far enough to cover a dedicated camera aircraft? Or was it just an overload of FIGJAM?? The risk assessment for this flight would make interesting reading - although I doubt it would take very long. :rolleyes:

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Assuming the plan was for Viper 1 to get B-Roll footage of Viper 2 (from above moving against the sea), inverted flight is certainly an unconventional way to do it.

Why assume that, when the cameraman was in Viper 2?

[43Inches]

Assuming the plan was for Viper 1 to get B-Roll footage of Viper 2 (from above moving against the sea), inverted flight is certainly an unconventional way to do it. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to operate a stabilised pro camera above your head upside down! Everyone else I know would get a CASA dispensation to temporarily fit a camera beneath the aircraft - for safety reasons, if nothing else - and fly upright.

Perhaps their budget didn't stretch far enough to cover a dedicated camera aircraft? Or was it just an overload of FIGJAM?? The risk assessment for this flight would make interesting reading - although I doubt it would take very long. :rolleyes:

As stated above Viper 1 was the target aircraft, it had fixed cameras on board that covered the incident, as did Viper 2. However Viper 2 was the dedicated camera ship as such with the passenger being a camera operator to capture more directed footage. The original idea was that Viper 1 invert and Viper 2 pull up from behind alongside filming from an offset angle. Viper 2 attempted that in the first pass, on the second pass V2 went under V1 and unsettled V1 with the unexpected manoever. They had a conversation about going off script, and on the third V2 conducted the underneath pass, but appears to have pitched too early and clipped V1.

From the sounds of it the risk assessment and pre-brief were very thorough and they had worked through a plan of how the flight would proceed (in the report). The problem seems to have started when V2 went off script. I've met the pilot of V1 a number of times and witnessed several of his in flight displays, all of which were elegant use of energy at safe altitudes in well coordinated patterns. I can only imagine he would have been very professional in the conduct of these shoots, and his reaction to the first off script event probably shows that concern of sticking to the plan. Beyond that the final report will unlock the mysteries behind what we don't know, there is more than enough evidence available for the ATSB to get a clear understanding.

[Amiri01]

They had a conversation about going off script, and on the third V1 conducted the underneath pass, but appears to have pitched too early and clipped V2..

You got your V1 and V2 back to front.

[BronteExperimental]

It’s all just conjecture really. If the ATSB released the actual recordings (even the transcripts) of the word for word “contact”, “discussions” , “advisory” and “alerts” on company frequency we’d all have a much better idea of what was briefed, what was off piste and what was f$&@ed up.
unfortunately we’re just left with sanitized drivel:

The safety pilot in Viper 1 observed Viper 2 pass beneath and alerted the pilot of Viper 1 to the manoeuvre. The pilot of Viper 1 then rolled upright and contacted the pilot of Viper 2 to discuss the manoeuvre. The pilot of Viper 2 advised that passing underneath Viper 1 provided a good filming opportunity and requested to repeat the manoeuvre. After discussing the manoeuvre, the pilots decided to attempt the previous manoeuvre again, and Viper 2 moved to the right echelon position to recommence the manoeuvre.

Reads like a building inspection. Useless.

[Chronic Snoozer]

What conjecture? The ATSB knows exactly what happened. This is the preliminary report. As previously posted #385 (https://www.pprune.org/11578231-post385.html), there are safety reasons for not flying underneath the aircraft you are contracted to avoid.

[43Inches]

It’s all just conjecture really. If the ATSB released the actual recordings (even the transcripts) of the word for word “contact”, “discussions” , “advisory” and “alerts” on company frequency we’d all have a much better idea of what was briefed, what was off piste and what was f$&@ed up.
unfortunately we’re just left with sanitized drivel:

The safety pilot in Viper 1 observed Viper 2 pass beneath and alerted the pilot of Viper 1 to the manoeuvre. The pilot of Viper 1 then rolled upright and contacted the pilot of Viper 2 to discuss the manoeuvre. The pilot of Viper 2 advised that passing underneath Viper 1 provided a good filming opportunity and requested to repeat the manoeuvre. After discussing the manoeuvre, the pilots decided to attempt the previous manoeuvre again, and Viper 2 moved to the right echelon position to recommence the manoeuvre.

Reads like a building inspection. Useless.

On the face of it, yes, I think they probably have all the information they need for conclusive evidence. But then there is weeks of pathological evidence to go through, fine comb the wreckage, wait on missing pieces, wait for all witnesses to come forward, aircraft histories to be compiled etc, etc, etc... Just in case some other causation creeps in, like pilot incapacitation or aircraft malfunction. Most likely evidence of that will be on video as well so making life a lot easier for the ATSB. Although like the "Onff" recording in the Potomac disaster, even having recordings of the lead up can add confusion as to the whys and human limitations.

All they can release in the Pre-lim is factual information that is of low doubt. All the rest is subject to scrutiny to be unwound and investigated, otherwise you just end up with public trials of individuals without proper explanation, and without all the evidence.