Cessna 210 crash at Flinders Island.

[CurtissJenny]

The TV news has it that today that a Cessna 210 crashed at the top end of Flinders Island (Bass Strait).

The aircraft is reported to have hit trees during take-off/landing and was destroyed by fire.

The six occupants escaped, some with injuries, and were transported to a hospital in Melbourne.

[grrowler]

A couple of corrections:

It crashed while attempting go around.

There were 5 pob, not 6.

The pilot is very experienced with lots of time on 210s.

[Woomera]

ggrowler

If that is so, then why did he leave his go round 'till so late and when on the runway probably with full flap and in a C210.??

It's an old old trap.

After you have ignored the opportunity to go round, way way back, before you reach the runway, once you've committed yourself to full flap and on the ground, it's always better to take your chances on the ground with the trees at 40 or 50 kts more or less under control than 80 plus kts in the air out of control.:rolleyes:

[aussie joe]

Hey Guys,

Word is that the landing was attempted with a significant amount of downwind.

Regardless of the pilot's experience and those comments prompted by 20/20 hindsight, the most important thing is that all managed to get out of the machine before the fire took hold.

Another WELL DONE to the Vic Air Ambo's in attending this accident. You guys do a fantasitic job - Keep up the great work!!

Seasons Greetings to you all.


Cheers

Aussie Joe!

[Push it real good]

Regardless of experience on type, it is a matter of recency and currency on type that should be examined. I understand from the media reports that this was a private flight by a private pilot.

How current on type was the pilot, when was his last check flight in a 210.... what was the demeanor of the pilot.... was he a know it all or a know nothing type of character ??

The fact that everyone walked away is a miracle when you look at the video footage of the crash path. Regardless of what the armchair experts trot out the fact remains that this crash was avoidable and I suggest the pilot "pushed a bad approach real bad". A typical attribute of complacency..and or ignorance.

Sympathies to the pilot & passengers who will carry the scars for the rest of their days. Get well soon.

PIRG

[grrowler]

PIRG, you seem to be a bit of an armchair expert on a few topics.

was he a know it all or a know nothing type of character ??
A typical attribute of complacency..and or ignorance.

Fairly stupid and arrogant comments to make.

Again we are seeing people drawing conclusions and making baseless statements on accidents from vague media reports.

[gaunty]

ggrowler

I heard an ABC interview with, I think the airport operator, who described the landing.
He suggested that the aircraft landed very long and then attempted to go round, in the process of which he clipped the trees at the end which brought him down.
If he was in fact landing downwind as has been suggested the result was entirely inevitable.

And before every one jumps in about 20/20 hindsight, one does not have to wait for the accident report in a year or so to say to every pilot out there, that what so far seems to have been a pefectly serviceable aicraft is now no longer so, with fortunately no loss of life.
Ponder this.
The fact that there was no loss of life is a product of pure chance, NOT the skill of the pilot who put them there in the first place.

the fact remains that this crash was avoidable and I suggest the pilot "pushed a bad approach real bad". A typical attribute of complacency..and or ignorance.

might to you sound a bit cruel, but is a bit hard to argue with.

The $50 or so saved, by not having another go if not completely comfortable with the approach looks a bit expensive now.

[SmallGlassofPort]

He is commercial with recent experience on both this and heavier aircraft types.

The best point about this discussion is the fact that we can learn from it.
Maybe it was downwind and he should have gone around and had another go. Maybe at the last minute he realised the gear was up. Maybe in the flare the throttle stuck in a half open position. I don't know.

I do know that he is lucky to be still with us, and he will learn from this experience. He isnt the first and definately wont be the last. All I hope is that we can discuss/learn from this. Our aim should be to assimilate the knowledge we gain from other peoples experiences/mistakes and not repeat them

Merry Chrissy all!

[VneII]

Well said Smallglassofport. Evweryone is ok and that is the most important thing.

As for pu****realgood and all the other armchair experts, who have obviously never made a mistake in there lives, since you were not there you should keep your derogitory remarks to yourself. You were NOT the Pilot In Command. You were NOT present and therefore are totally unaware of any of the factors relating to the incident. Until all facts are known and more importantly all factors that led to the (experienced) pilots decision making are reveiled we are mearly speculating on inacurrate information.

I'm sure that in this case and that of any other incident the pilot will never make this mistake again. The trick is for every other pilot in the country to also learn from this and never have the situation repeated. There is an old saying "if you haven't made a mistake, you haven't made anything" add that to "I never make the same mistake twice cause I'm too busy making new ones" and you have a good philosophy = "learn from others mistakes cause there is too many for you to make all alone".

So try and look at the positives we can get from this unfortunate incident and not have it repeated.

merry xmas

VneII

[Push it real good]

It never ceases to amaze me the number of PPRUNE contributors who fall into the trap of becoming emotionally involved.
While defending a mate is an enviable quality, putting up the shutters and rejecting criticism is not.

One should keep the comments to the subject at hand and in the spirit of healthy and rigorous debate. In this manner the discussion and learning process can be furthered.

In this case we are fortunate to have listened to (ABC) 2 eye witnesses to the crash who give credible and consitent accounts of the approach and ultimate demise of the 210.

Why would they fabricate anything ?? they wouldn't need to they related what they saw.

We now have a credible account and the evidence via video footage from tv assists us to interpret their account. Suffice to say, I once again SUGGEST that this crash was totally avoidable.

Obviously some contributors know this pilot as your defensive posts are self evident. Given that you assert that the pilot is a commercial then that becomes even more perplexing.....

No doubt at a later stage when the passengers are interviewed or realise that there is a $$ to be made by suing the pilot and the aircraft company for negligence there will be further debate and possibly another side to all of this, from inside the aircraft.

Let us for the time being keep to the subject. The approach was compromised and the go around unsuccessful.

I will be putting this scenario to stage 2 applicants in the next round as I believe the responses are a good indication of a persons ability to be analytical, objective & subjective. The reactive emotion has no place in the cockpit and is not a desired CRM quality.

PIRG

[SmallGlassofPort]

Push it I agree with you. No he is not a mate, but I do know of him.

Like you I suggest this crash was totally avoidable. To take it one step further, I believe EVERY crash is avoidable. AN 747 nose wheel up, QF 747 runway overrun, Concorde, Ag truck stalling on a turn...all avoidable.

My comments on this matter are based upon something like 5th hand information as alas I have not even seen the video footage. However, from what I have read/heard I have a picture in my head of what has occured. Whether its right or not I suppose is up to luck.


The purpose of my post was to encourage discussion of what may have transpired without us becoming judge and jury. Like a reason model or error chain, I can only hope that this accident had more contributory factors than just pushing a bad approach. If that is the only reason, well, he must be pretty dark at himself right now....

To toss a wierd idea in the air. Lets consider that just maybe the throttle jammed slightly open during the flare. This in turn creates a long landing and subsequent attempt at go-around. Throttle still jammed.... crash. In this situation the best decision obviously would have been to roll out into the trees after pulling the idle cutoff. Lucky I wasnt in the hot seat to decide that during the flare, to many brain cells eaten away by port! I still haven't considered the downwind landing you say? Maybe prior to any abnormal he was aware of the downwind and accepted it for landing in order to save the extra circuit. I am unsure of the direction from which he approached the strip.

I guess we will find out eventually.

Oh yes. In regard to your comments about CRM. I think we are trying to say very similar things, the difference being I did it without putting peoples noses out of joint!

[grrowler]

Yes I do know the pilot, yes he is a mate, and admittedly I probably wouldn't be commenting if I didn't know him.

Also I'll admit that the only coverage of the accident I saw was a very brief report on a commercial station, no eyewitnesses.

Maybe it was pilot error, but as a couple posters have pointed out, there could have been other things that had gone wrong as well. You weren't there, and even eyewitnesses looking on couldn't know exactly what was happening in the cockpit. I'm sure they didn't fabricate anything, just related their perception of events.

So we take the best information that we have from reports, etc and we draw our own conclusion. I'm sure anyone interested in the accident will have done so. And maybe we learn something from it.

PIRG, to say I'm blindly defending a mate is way off the mark. I have no problem with you suggesting the accident was avoidable, a lot are and I agree. What I'm SUGGESTING is perhaps your comments on these sort topics could be a little more tactful. Maybe I read it wrong, but the way I interpreted your initial post was that the pilot was either a "know it all" or a "know nothing". Now I think I can safely presume we have all made wrong decisions at some point, maybe we haven't paid for them, but surely that doesn't automatically put us into one of those two categories.

Oh and I need to make it clear that the flight was definately private.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

SGOP:

Every crash is avoidable? I think that is drawing a long bow.

[SmallGlassofPort]

Pass - A - Frozo, I concede.

The point I was trying to make is that there must be human error in the chain somewhere for an accident to happen.

Somedays, the only way to prevent an accident may be to just stay at home!

Talking about that, now where was that cellar, I'm thirsty....

[Dog One]

A couple of points to bear in mind

1. One of the eye witnesses is a pilot of around 40 years experience. His description of the events would be as they happened.

2. TV footage of the wreckage indicated that scuba bottles were on board, and exploded during the post crash fire.

In general, the strip has good approaches, meets all the requirements of an ALA, and is used frequently.

ATSB have ruled out mechanical malfunction of the aircraft which leaves pilot error as the cause.

What does amaze me is that the Tasmanian Ambulance service sent there helicopter from Hobart to Flinders. The reason or logic behind this is not very clear, as by the time it had arrived, the patients had been transported to Whitemark hospital, and were then conveyed by road ambulance to the airport and flown to Melbourne by the waiting RFDS King Airs. I am sure that it would be hard for the Tas Ambulance to justify the cost to the tax payer.

[hadagutful]

OK Folks,

Just leaving aside all the emotion, I don't know the pilot's level of experience for the conditions he found himself in nor the weather situation at the time or state of the airstrip.

However, here you have a commercial (?) pilot with 5 POB and baggage (probably close to gross weight) in a fairly smart single wanting to land at a private grass airstrip.

Questions: What was the state of the pilot? i.e. any fatigue etc.
Had he used this strip before and was he familiar with its vagaries?
How long since he landed on ANY grass airstrip of marginal length for the aircraft type.
Were the conditions in fact suitable for a landing at all? (Recall "we have to get thereitis" syndrome.)

There are no doubt many other potential factors - usually no accident is caused by any single factor.

I just pose those questions but thank God they survived for another day. Hopefully the pilot can learn from the nasty experience.

[safeskiesabove]

You people are incredible......

Get off your high horses, Now I can say that, because you probably wouldn't have as much time as the pilot involved here, all put together. Now I don't just mean time, but experience, knowledge, dedication,passion,and the love of flying that this fine PILOT has.
Many times in his Working career many junior pilots (Commercial)
would have accepted his advice freely. Advice that was real. No Bulls%$t invoved . Straight down the line advice from a real bloke.
Before you all lay in with all your misinformation wait and see what transpires, How about offering words of comfort to the pilot and passengers that would more than likely be reading that B/S that was said earlier on in the forum.
Sometimes it helps to reverse the role, then maybe you may see what I'm saying here.....
If you want to comment on facts regarding this accident, Why don't we hear about your credentials also. ???????????
Maybe just a newbee CPL or PPL.. Grow up kids. People are involved here.
I have also had near misses and thankfully for me and my pax that's all they have been , But I can explain each one though, How about letting this Pilot do the same you children..........

Merry Christmas from santa

[OpsNormal]

You beat me to it. I lost a friend a bit earlier this year in another GA crash and his body wasn't even cold before the "armchair experts" surfaced and went to work telling all who'd listen their "theory" on why Andrew had died.

Retrospective Cowards.

My deepest sympathy to those involved in this accident. I hope you can all put your experience behind you and move on.

[safeskiesabove]

Mr.PIRG
The only thing that requires pushing real good is your head out of you a#$e.

The comments you make throughout this forum are weak and contain no substance whatsoever.

I don't know who you are but would sure like to talk to you.....




Wake up boy!!!!!!!!
:confused:

[Push it real good]

Safeskiesabove


I rest my case... you are emotionally involved as he is a mate. You have zero objectivity in this debate and are choosing to ignore the facts.

I commend you for standing up for your mate as it is a great Aussie tradition. Resorting to expletives will not influence any reader of the validity of your argument, it will only serve to demonstrate your ignorance and lack of analytical skills.

PIRG

[Snapper_head]

Yes gentleman we probably are emotionally involved and I for one will stand up and support my mate also. We cannot sit back and subjectively analyse this incident because of our emotional involvement and before this becomes a slanging match I suggest the subject is closed.
I have deep sympathy for the pilot and people on board and am glad there were no serious injuries. I for one would like to see this gentleman back in the skys where he belongs I hope he gets back on the horse quickly.!!!!!!

Snapper

[cficare]

Overweight

Attempted landing downwind (15 kts)

Late initiation of go-around, after a number of bounces

Dangerous goods on board

ATSB not interested because it doesn,t involve a mechanical problem

story ends...........

[marshall]

Well-said safeskiesabove and OpsNormal

"armchair experts" surfaced and went to work telling all who'd listen their "theory"

Hit the nail on the head!

With so many so called "experts" on PPRune, I find it hard to believe accidents and incidents aren't presented here so all these knowledgeable people could determine what went wrong!

Wake up you w**kers and stop pretending that you're gods gift to aviation!

[hadagutful]

To "safeskiesabove"

I don't know your flying experience or life experience for that matter, you choose to have a totally anonymous profile, that's OK, BUT it doesn't serve much purpose to start using suggestive or intemperate language towards other respondents on this forum.

It doesn't matter whether the pilot responsible for this accident was "passionate", had lots of hours or was a great bloke - it was an accident that nearly killed him and his passengers. Hopefully ATSB will identify the causes.

Generally speaking, it is probably not wise to make comment or conjecture regarding particular incidents/accidents without all the facts.
However, as professionals (I would hope) we should be able to discuss in general terms issues relating to aircraft safety in a more mature fashion.

Thanks, fly safely and Merry Xmas.

[druglord]

Just wanna say 'hi' to my mates around here. Sorry to hear about the crash. And my two bits worth....he's a great pilot from what I know of him, not a cowboy and a lot of common sense. I don't think any of us here are above making mistakes so let's go a little easy on him cuz it could've been us just as easy. happy hols.

[PLovett]

cficare

Not sure that scuba tanks are dangerous goods. Until yesterday I thought they were but on talking to an operator, he advised that the tanks contain compressed air, not compressed oxygen, which would classify as dangerous goods. I'm still not too sure about this but the operator was adamant. He used to treat them as dangerous goods and emptied the tanks before taking them then did some checks and now accepts them.

That they exploded once the fire took hold is a fact, photographs of the crash site show next to nothing was left of the aircraft. Perhaps thats why the ATSB did not investigate at the site. ;)

Snapper_head

Believed the pilot in question got back on his horse much quicker than expected. It was reported in one of the local papers that he flew an aircraft back to Latrobe Valley the same day as the crash. :eek:

[buzz box]

cficare I guess you must have been there to have all the 'facts'

Having a few hours on the almighty 210, i find it hard to believe they were landing overweight. Full tanks with 5 on board allows about 90kg per person! Obviously they didnt have full tanks on landing.

But then again, unlike you i wasnt there :rolleyes:

Safe and happy xmas for all!

[Dog One]

safeskiesabove

Calm down before you make a complete fool of yourself. Your posts indicate to me, that you have thrown all logic out the window.
Put yourself in the position of the Chief Pilot of the company. One of your pilots, who is a close mate of yours, has just written off one of your aircraft. Where would your professional responsibility to your company, the aircraft owner and CASA lie?
Would you continue with your blind defence of the pilot, or would you investigate why a reasonably experienced pilot would attempt to land down wind, and leave the missed approach until it was to late.
Often on these pages I see people go to great lenghts to tell the world how good pilot X was or is, only to read the final ATSB report which tells that pilot X has serious shortcomings, which caused the accident.
If your mate has made a mistake, so be it, he like us is only human and, fortunately has lived to learn from this accident.

[VneII]

It is great to see so many people come out of the wood work in support of a friend and college and I think that this is an admoral thing to do.

I also see that from reading the posts those (armchair experts) who would attempt to critisize this pilot do so with as much emotion and vigor as the people who defend his actions. Because you are emotional about a topic does not automatically make your arguments rediculous nor void you of analitical skill. I would suggest that in fact having intense views on something would make you ponder all the factors to a greater degree. If you read safeskies post you will find that he makes very good points and does not use expletives to address anyone or anything merely only to help pu****realgood locate his head.

To bring the thread back on track. An accident happened. It could of been avoided. Once the pilot new it was going to happen he used his skill to keep the wings level and nose up. Its bad the aircraft was in that position but the PIC kept his head, flew the aircraft in and made sure everyone evacuated ok and then he did. That is why everyone is alive.

Lets be responsible professionals. Remember the pilot will read this as will many other pilots so lets try to LEARN from this unfortunate mess and not critisize.

VneII

PS g'day to all the boys, especially Druglord, nice to hear from you. A safe and merry xmas to all.

[safeskiesabove]

You are very correct Sir!!!!!!!

The fact that I was trying to explain is that everyone is in there boots and all into a bloke with no real facts at all..
When you know the person/pilot, only then may you understand how ridiculous some of those postings were.

I am not disputing the fact of responsibilty by myself or anyone else who has defended the man.Logic my friend is a great tool to have, all I was merely attempting to create, was that some people ought to apply logic in regards to the circumstances that prevailed, and not get over emotional until facts were real and not inuendo's

If I offended P.I.R.G then I am happy.. because he offended lot's of other people with silly statements and not just in this posting.
Mr Woomera has also jumped on the bandwagon with defending the fools that have posted silly statements and issued me with a warning So mr. dog one I have pulled my head in.
Thankyou for comments but 'Fool I am Not"

[grrowler]

I have been talking to the pilot involved, and I actually know what happened. He is quite happy for me to post the facts as he related them to me. Now before I state the facts, please understand that the pilot knows and admits he made a mistake, and the statements below are intended to clear up some of the ridiculous statements that have been thrown around (that would be you cficare!), and HOPEFULLY put this matter to rest.

1. He took off approximately 10kg UNDER MTOW, and was well under when he was making is approach at Flinders.

2. The windsock at Flinders was apparently ripped to ******* and not useable. The a/c was not GPS equipped and the pilot could not see any other visual cues (smoke, etc, and yes he did look for water ripples) to determine the wind direction. According to the pilot, the wind was about 5kts not 15, when he checked it after the accident.

3. The go around was initiated too late, no one denies that. Lets bare in mind an important point; when the pilot realised he wasn't going to clear the trees, he didn't panic and put the plane into a stall or spin trying to manouver, but flew the plane in a controlled manner.

4. The tanks were allowed to be carried. I don't know much (anything) about diving or scuba, but I was told they were dive tanks, and they are not really pressurised(?). Someone might know more about this.

5. The pilot was not fatigued.

6. I know the pilot had been to Flinders before, I don't know if he had flown in there before, but he is a professional, and would have made himself familiar with the ALA before the flight if he needed to.

7. He had hunndreds of houurs on type, but had not flown the aircraft type for about 6 months I believe.

8. The strip was completely suitable (apart from the windsock).

More questions anyone?

The pilot has appreciated the support he has received through this experience. He has gone through a rough time with useless media dogs hounding him and his family, and doesn't need to get slagged by his fellow so-called professionals as well.

PIRG, where does arrogance fit into your CRM? If you are indeed involved in multi crew ops, I bet the crew would feel real comfortable speaking up when something was wrong :rolleyes: But then I suppose they are only there to pass you the coffee aren't they :rolleyes:

[Woomera]

I have been following the entirely predictable progress of this thread and in fact composed a post some days ago but hit the wrong button and I haven't had the time to follow it up.

Safeskiesabove
If I offended P.I.R.G then I am happy.. because he offended lot's of other people with silly statements and not just in this posting.
Mr Woomera has also jumped on the bandwagon with defending the fools that have posted silly statements and issued me with a warning So mr. dog one I have pulled my head in.
I can’t let that one pass without comment.
You were warned for your language or abuse of another PPRuNer, NOT for any other reason. You can disagree with them or me, but it is NOT necessary to abuse either them or by association myself, nor is it acceptable to rejoice in the offence given. You do your cause in the defence of your mate or your mate no favour. I will, in this case and only out of respect for your mate, let this through to the keeper.

Push It Real Good pretty much says what I was going to;
It never ceases to amaze me the number of PPRUNE contributors who fall into the trap of becoming emotionally involved.
While defending a mate is an enviable quality, putting up the shutters and rejecting criticism is not.

One should keep the comments to the subject at hand and in the spirit of healthy and rigorous debate. In this manner the discussion and learning process can be furthered. (Woomera's bolding and italics.)

In this case we are fortunate to have listened to (ABC) 2 eye witnesses to the crash who give credible and consitent accounts of the approach and ultimate demise of the 210.

Why would they fabricate anything ?? they wouldn't need to they related what they saw.

We now have a credible account and the evidence via video footage from tv assists us to interpret their account. Suffice to say, I once again SUGGEST that this crash was totally avoidable.

Obviously some contributors know this pilot as your defensive posts are self evident. Given that you assert that the pilot is a commercial then that becomes even more perplexing.....

No doubt at a later stage when the passengers are interviewed or realise that there is a $$ to be made by suing the pilot and the aircraft company for negligence there will be further debate and possibly another side to all of this, from inside the aircraft.

Let us for the time being keep to the subject. The approach was compromised and the go around unsuccessful. (Woomera's bolding again.)

I will be putting this scenario to stage 2 applicants in the next round as I believe the responses are a good indication of a persons ability to be analytical, objective & subjective. The reactive emotion has no place in the cockpit and is not a desired CRM quality.

PIRG



We are talking here, about being professional on a Professional Forum.

It would be interesting to see how many of you were paying attention and if any lessons were learnt should you get to a Stage 2 interview with PIRG.

gaunty says;
Ponder this.
The fact that there was no loss of life is a product of pure chance, NOT the skill of the pilot who put them there in the first place.

ggrowler confirms the major hypotheses touted here ,

The go around was initiated too late, no one denies that.

However, some RHETORICAL questions to your points;
1. A given

2. Did he have a TAF and/or Area FCST, in the absence of a serviceable sock; they would have given some valuable clues.

3. Lets bare (sic) in mind an important point; when the pilot realised he wasn't going to clear the trees, he didn't panic and put the plane into a stall or spin trying to manouver, but flew the plane in a controlled manner.
Quite so but hardly the point in the context of this discussion.
That's the same as saying because I accidentally ran a red traffic light, I'll stop at the next two greens to make up for it.

4. but I was told they were dive tanks, and they are not really pressurised(?) About 3,000psi I believe.

5. The pilot was not fatigued.
Doesn't help your argument at all in re the failure of judgement.

6. I know the pilot had been to Flinders before, I don't know if he had flown in there before, but he is a professional, and would have made himself familiar with the ALA before the flight if he needed to. My bolding.
But did he.

7. He had hunndreds of houurs on type, but had not flown the aircraft type for about 6 months I believe.
In my book that's a long enough period of time away from an aircraft like a C210 to be extra extra cautious, as well as going into a strip that I had not recently visited.
May I suggest that this is what prompted the "complacency and/or arrogance" remark?
PIRG may be able to tell us what his airlines policy on "currency" is in this context.

8. The strip was completely suitable (apart from the windsock).
Who owned the strip and is responsible for it and the windsocks maintenance and did the pilot ring beforehand to check the strips serviceability and fulfil all his obligations in this regard. Completely suitable, qualified by, (apart from the windsock) is a non sequitur.??

In summary the passionate defence of your mate, whilst laudable, may not produce the result that you wish and raise more question than answers..

Your friend, I am sure, is grateful for your thoughts, but as a true professional I am sure he would also welcome a frank and open discussion of his plight as a means of imparting the lessons to as wide an audience as is possible.

This is one of the cornerstones of our industry, SHARING, mistakes, problems, events, accidents or whatever in a way that will help prevent further occurrences or simply make us think and assess our current practise and performance.

When that stops, we are ALL in BIG trouble.

That way hopefully we don’t just keep on repeating the same old same old.

[marshall]

WOW Woomera, a long post! :p Glad to see you throwing some! :D

Grrowler glad to see some ACTUAL facts!

About time somebody actually went to the source and said it as it was!

[grrowler]

Woomera,

The purpose of my post was to both verify and on the other hand debunk the various theses proposed. It was not to build a case defending my mate. I stated facts, and if I wasn't sure on some points I made that clear.

My response was mostly prompted by cficare's ridiculous post. Each line of his post read like a sensationalist newspaper headline, and paints the picture of an irresponsible and "dodgy" pilot, which I, and many others, know is not the case.

I concede to most of your points, but some are fairly weak:

1. Yes, but others would like to suggest otherwise.

2. Yes he had forecasts. The point I was trying to make here was the wind strength was light, not blowing 15 knots, and if true, the wind could not be considered much of a contributor to the events that followed.

3. That's the same as saying because I accidentally ran a red traffic light, I'll stop at the next two greens to make up for it.

It's nothing like that at all, that scenario is stupid, pointless and in fact more dangerous. Perhaps a more fitting analogy would be driving too fast and skidding, but then keeping enough control of the vehicle to avoid dangerous obstacles and thereby saving the occupants.

4. I was told they were dive tanks, rather than scuba tanks, apparently there is a big difference. The point is there were NO DG's on board.

5. Doesn't help your argument at all in re the failure of judgement.

You are on the wrong track there; as I said earlier I was simply stating facts for everyone's benefit, not trying to build an argument.

6. I will verify this next time I speak to the pilot.

7. I agree, and I feel the major contributor to the accident.

8. Need to verify this also. WX was not an issue.

In summary the passionate defence of your mate, whilst laudable, may not produce the result that you wish and raise more question than answers..

If I was blindly defending my mate, I'm sure you'll agree I would have left out some of the facts.

I was defending his CHARACTER, not the accident.

[Woomera]

ggrowler

Fair enough.

And my apologies if you thought I was actually trying to give you or your mate a hard time I was just trying to point out that we can, or should be able to discuss these matters without anyone feeling defensive or that they need to defend anyone else.

I used the word RHETORICAL (a question asked not for information but to produce an effect) as I wasn't trying to provide or debate answers per se.

Thank you for the information and I do understand your point of differentiation between "character" and "accident".

I had a good look through the posts, at least I thought I did and I don't recall there being any form of actual character assasination in amongst all of the noise.

There are always lessons that need to be relearned or reinforced for ALL of us in these accidents that are for the most part independant of the "character" of the pilot, albeit there are some character traits that are undesirable in a pilot.


From Vne11
I'm sure that in this case and that of any other incident the pilot will never make this mistake again. The trick is for every other pilot in the country to also learn from this and never have the situation repeated. There is an old saying "if you haven't made a mistake, you haven't made anything" add that to "I never make the same mistake twice cause I'm too busy making new ones" and you have a good philosophy = "learn from others mistakes cause there is too many for you to make all alone".

SmallGlassOf Port
I do know that he is lucky to be still with us, and he will learn from this experience. He isnt the first and definately wont be the last. All I hope is that we can discuss/learn from this. Our aim should be to assimilate the knowledge we gain from other peoples experiences/mistakes and not repeat them

Dog One
Put yourself in the position of the Chief Pilot of the company. One of your pilots, who is a close mate of yours, has just written off one of your aircraft. Where would your professional responsibility to your company, the aircraft owner and CASA lie?
Would you continue with your blind defence of the pilot, or would you investigate why a reasonably experienced pilot would attempt to land down wind, and leave the missed approach until it was to late.
Often on these pages I see people go to great lenghts to tell the world how good pilot X was or is, only to read the final ATSB report which tells that pilot X has serious shortcomings, which caused the accident.
If your mate has made a mistake, so be it, he like us is only human and, fortunately has lived to learn from this accident.


In the other Professional arena's and in particular, the medical profession where lives are at stake, rigorous peer review of every action is accepted and welcomed as a fact of life. Often it is very vigourous and sometimes noses may get put out of joint, but it imposes a necessary discipline, that raises the bar for everyone and from which everyone ultimately benefits. To earn the respect of your peers is the ultimate accolade beyond the bare qualification.

I would like to hope we are approaching that level.

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your lucky friend and may I wish his passengers a speedy return to good health.

[compressor stall]

In the other Professional arena's [sic]and in particular, the medical profession where lives are at stake, rigorous peer review of every action is accepted and welcomed as a fact of life. Often it is very vigourous and sometimes noses may get put out of joint, but it imposes a necessary discipline, that raises the bar for everyone and from which everyone ultimately benefits. To earn the respect of your peers is the ultimate accolade beyond the bare qualification.


Some of the wisest words i have yet read on this thread Woomera. The complicating factor in aviation is that the egos are much bigger, and the important decisions are made in split seconds. Your statement still holds true though.

However, this "rigorous peer review" should only occur once the facts of the case are examined in detail and released by professional investigators. That as we well know takes months/years.

If a pilot has an accident as the unfortunate YKCK pilot did, it is difficult for the pilot's friends to sit around and hear his/her name being sullied without springing to defence of the person's character. After all our judicial system presumes innocence, which in this case is the fact that the accident was beyond the pilot's control.

Merry xmas to all

CS

PS: - Could someone elaborate on the difference between a "dive" tank and a "scuba" tank? Do not both hold compressed gases (but still in the same oxygen quantities, just with Helium replacing the nitrogen).

I don't have my DG handbook with me - it's in my navbag, but I thought that they can only be carried when they were empty and 'valve open'?

I regularly carry divers (although not usually tanks) and it's like something I should know, ESPECIALLY how to tell the difference. :confused:

[PILAME]

CS

I think people are talking about the same thing when they say 'scuba' or 'dive' tank. Compressed air is normally used for diving but some divers use an oxygen/compressed air mix for deep dives. Dry Compressed air is normally suitable for most recreational divers.

As far as I can tell scuba bottles are dangerous goods if they have compressed air in them. I don't have a DG manual at home so I can't be sure.

Merry Christmas Everyone;) ;) ;) ;)

PS. SCUBA Stands for Self Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus

[hadagutful]

PILAME

You are right, SCUBA cylinders or tanks and "dive" tanks are the same.

Contrary to what many non-divers believe, they DO NOT contain compressed O2, this does not need to be breathed.
It is simply compressed air and only at much greater depths is heliox used, i.e. a mixture of helium and oxygen to give a longer and safer bottom time.

As a pilot and a diver I would not carry full SCUBA tanks on an aircraft as they could constitute a hazard in the air and also they are a quite a bit heavier than empty tanks so weight is a major consideration. Did they in this case also carry weight belts? All adds up!

Other major point is that you CANNOT dive then fly the same day, you risk DCS (decompression sickness). Every diver should know that.

Pity to see so much personal vendetta and jibes throughout this whole accident discussion.

As for me, I've said my bit and I'm out.

Flying diver or diving flyer.

[Dale Harris]

Regardless of what is contained in the tanks, if they are pressurised, then they constitute DG. They can be carried, scuba tanks that is, if the Company has a DG Manual as part of their OPs Manual. They cannot be carried in the passenger cabin of the aircraft, if I recall correctly. Kinda difficult not to do in a 210. P.S., under the DG manual, they can be carried full or empty, as long as the provisions of the manual per their carriage are adhered to.

[shipreck]

To All

The facts will come out soon enough. I reckon that the more we speculate the longer this thread will continue and personal attacks will occur. We started with a failed go around and it has now got to carrying D.G's..... Please.

To those who know him don't bother putting anymore post on this thread, you have your opinions others have theirs, let it die a natural death now.

The Pilot concerned knows what happened, he will be stuck with this for a long time and nobody is going to be harder on him than himself.

We have all read the posts and most of us will be making damn sure it doesn't happen to us.

To most of the people who have posted replies and reckon they know the facts, believe me you don't cause the pilot himself hasn't fully figured it out yet...

Merry xmas and new year.