Merged: Mid Air Collision Near Palmerston North
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Neiu Zeeeeland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Palmerston North is unique, unlike Ardmore's uniqueness (even though comparisons can, and are being made).
Ardmore has a designated training area now called a GAA with defined lateral and upper limits and a relatively similar mix of aircraft - IFR aircraft are vectored around the airspace. It may take an extra 15mins of flying time to find a patch of clear airspace in the training area, but it can be found.
Palmerston North has no designated training area, although (as DeadHead has pointed out) there is a GAA area to the north which can only be activated with approval of Ohakea. There is a mix of IFR, VFR and military aircraft (don't forget the gliders at Feilding) - all at differing speeds, 3 airfield within a 10nm radius of Palmerston - combined with a differing level of experience and understanding of the English language (Massey often has foreign students flying solo, whose first language is not english).
Speaking up is all very well, provided the pilots have the level of experience to understand what is being said and, if you have 5-10 aircraft in the same area all chatting away, how much info is too much and ends up getting ignored?
Palmerston is also restricted by the weather, prevailling westerlies often prevent the use of the area to the east of the Manawatu Gorge due to turbulence and low cloud.
The area that is available for training is small in comparison to Ardmore, so maintaining an effective lookout and good SA is essential. We all know from our years as trainee pilots how difficult it is to maintain good SA, while practising solo manoeuvres such as stalling and PFLWOP. How easy is it for a low hour pilot to judge closing speed and distance?
I was not aware the the legal lower limit had been reduced, and advocating that student pilots follow the same practice is unbelievable and bordering on the dangerous.
All this discussion lead into others questions, as it was mentioned that the aircraft were at 90 degrees to each other. Is the Cherokee a suitable aircraft for training and ...
What procedure should be used when climbing out after forced landing practice - climb straight ahead, or climbing turn to remain over the field until at a suitable altitude?
Ardmore has a designated training area now called a GAA with defined lateral and upper limits and a relatively similar mix of aircraft - IFR aircraft are vectored around the airspace. It may take an extra 15mins of flying time to find a patch of clear airspace in the training area, but it can be found.
Palmerston North has no designated training area, although (as DeadHead has pointed out) there is a GAA area to the north which can only be activated with approval of Ohakea. There is a mix of IFR, VFR and military aircraft (don't forget the gliders at Feilding) - all at differing speeds, 3 airfield within a 10nm radius of Palmerston - combined with a differing level of experience and understanding of the English language (Massey often has foreign students flying solo, whose first language is not english).
Fragnasty
See and be seen works if you are diligent with your lookout, and use the radio to build your SA of what's going on around you. If you're out there practising forced landings in particular, you should have cleared the area you're going to descend into before you start - it is a practise after all.
See and be seen works if you are diligent with your lookout, and use the radio to build your SA of what's going on around you. If you're out there practising forced landings in particular, you should have cleared the area you're going to descend into before you start - it is a practise after all.
Palmerston is also restricted by the weather, prevailling westerlies often prevent the use of the area to the east of the Manawatu Gorge due to turbulence and low cloud.
The area that is available for training is small in comparison to Ardmore, so maintaining an effective lookout and good SA is essential. We all know from our years as trainee pilots how difficult it is to maintain good SA, while practising solo manoeuvres such as stalling and PFLWOP. How easy is it for a low hour pilot to judge closing speed and distance?
MOR
Personally I can't see any point at all in doing FLWOP/PFLs down to 500', it is that last 500' that determines the outcome of the exercise. We always used to go down to 50' or so, by then you know whether you are going to get in or not.
Personally I can't see any point at all in doing FLWOP/PFLs down to 500', it is that last 500' that determines the outcome of the exercise. We always used to go down to 50' or so, by then you know whether you are going to get in or not.
All this discussion lead into others questions, as it was mentioned that the aircraft were at 90 degrees to each other. Is the Cherokee a suitable aircraft for training and ...
What procedure should be used when climbing out after forced landing practice - climb straight ahead, or climbing turn to remain over the field until at a suitable altitude?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR - ta for the info about "how stuff used to be done". It sounds like you had a good system running back then.
Yes, that's true. But how can instructors improve matters if there is no-one around with more than five years' experience instructing?
indigo duck
Take a deep breath there mate - MOR wasn't suggesting going down to 50' outside an LFZ. And within an LFZ, his suggestion is quite legal. Whether it is necessary or indeed safe is arguable of course...
I haven't stuck my neck out in ages (like 24 hours at least) so here's a suggestion: The primary objective of a FLWOP pattern is not to "see if you'll make it in", but to develop skills and judgement (as opposed to random feelings) to adjust the flightpath as required by circumstances. There is no requirement to descend below 500' to know whether you would make it in, as your judgement, or lack of, is quite obvious before that.
Now ducking for cover. All yours MOR...
Perhaps we should start an instructing techniques thread - that would be a useful outcome from the tragic event we're discussing.
Operating safely does not involve shrugging your shoulders and saying "Oh well, that's the way it is, we'll carry on until aluminium confetti occurs". It involves a conscious, deliberate decision to never compromise high operating standards. Sadly, it seems that NZ GA doesn't understand this, hence the high number of completely preventable accidents that occur.
indigo duck
Take a deep breath there mate - MOR wasn't suggesting going down to 50' outside an LFZ. And within an LFZ, his suggestion is quite legal. Whether it is necessary or indeed safe is arguable of course...
I haven't stuck my neck out in ages (like 24 hours at least) so here's a suggestion: The primary objective of a FLWOP pattern is not to "see if you'll make it in", but to develop skills and judgement (as opposed to random feelings) to adjust the flightpath as required by circumstances. There is no requirement to descend below 500' to know whether you would make it in, as your judgement, or lack of, is quite obvious before that.
Now ducking for cover. All yours MOR...
Perhaps we should start an instructing techniques thread - that would be a useful outcome from the tragic event we're discussing.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oktas8
Thank you, you seem to have understood what Indigo Duck didn't!
Regarding standards, it is not so much the instructors as their supervisors, ie chief instructors. If you insist on high standards amongst your instructors, and then check them from time to time to make sure no bad habits are creeping in, you should be able to prevent a lot of the bad stuff. If the CAA carried out audits worthy of the name, it would help. In addition, the CAA should be vigorously vetting chief instructors in training organisations, and ensuring that all chief pilots have adequate experience.
As far as forced landing practise is concerned, I don't agree that you know whether the outcome will be successful from 500 feet. If you cast your eye over the many accident reports dealing with landing accidents over, say, the last ten years, you will see that the vast majority start going wrong in the last 100 feet or so, where windshear, turbulence, visual illusions etc really start to bite. We started taking our guys to 50 feet after a couple of actual forced landings resulted in destroyed aircraft. We found that virtually all of them could get to 500' in approximately the right place, but only about 30% were still in the right place at 50'. Practising to 500' tells you very little about the competence of the student to get it on the ground in one piece. When I did my PPL, the FTO insisted I went down to 50'. Times seem to have changed (along with a general drop in standards).
As far as being dangerous, it is no more dangerous than going to 500'. If you attempt to go around and the engine farts and dies, you are in for a forced landing in either circumstance. There is no way you should be attempting to recover a failed or sick engine from 500' - close the throttle and concentrate on the landing. Of course, if you are at 50' and in the right place, you have less time to stress out!
More to the point, clear the engine every 1000' or so and the problem shouldn't arise.
Anyway, it is a topic worthy of continued discussion...
Thank you, you seem to have understood what Indigo Duck didn't!
Regarding standards, it is not so much the instructors as their supervisors, ie chief instructors. If you insist on high standards amongst your instructors, and then check them from time to time to make sure no bad habits are creeping in, you should be able to prevent a lot of the bad stuff. If the CAA carried out audits worthy of the name, it would help. In addition, the CAA should be vigorously vetting chief instructors in training organisations, and ensuring that all chief pilots have adequate experience.
As far as forced landing practise is concerned, I don't agree that you know whether the outcome will be successful from 500 feet. If you cast your eye over the many accident reports dealing with landing accidents over, say, the last ten years, you will see that the vast majority start going wrong in the last 100 feet or so, where windshear, turbulence, visual illusions etc really start to bite. We started taking our guys to 50 feet after a couple of actual forced landings resulted in destroyed aircraft. We found that virtually all of them could get to 500' in approximately the right place, but only about 30% were still in the right place at 50'. Practising to 500' tells you very little about the competence of the student to get it on the ground in one piece. When I did my PPL, the FTO insisted I went down to 50'. Times seem to have changed (along with a general drop in standards).
As far as being dangerous, it is no more dangerous than going to 500'. If you attempt to go around and the engine farts and dies, you are in for a forced landing in either circumstance. There is no way you should be attempting to recover a failed or sick engine from 500' - close the throttle and concentrate on the landing. Of course, if you are at 50' and in the right place, you have less time to stress out!
More to the point, clear the engine every 1000' or so and the problem shouldn't arise.
Anyway, it is a topic worthy of continued discussion...
Couldn't help comment on some statements here.
I don't see how Palmy airspace is that special/cramped or what ever when compared to Ardmore. They both have a high density of GA and other traffic (gliders and various mixes of aircraft types and nearby airfields) including lower hour pilots under training.
Broadcasting of position reports is all very well but I fear some people over do that part, just listen out on 119.1 sometime to hear some of the mindless broadcasts that go on. Some people talk too much and clutter up the frequency, which means one of two things happen, people tune out or turn the volume down. I wonder sometimes that some pilots think that by continually talking, others will see them thereby absolving them of having to keep a vigilant look out.
There is no substitute for keeping a good look out at all times.
The RNZAF have trained quite satisfactorily in the areas around Ohakea, they have methods they use to help ensure separation. Perhaps some of those methods could be used.
This comment really had me baffled
A bit like saying, "Is any aircraft suitable for training".
I don't see how Palmy airspace is that special/cramped or what ever when compared to Ardmore. They both have a high density of GA and other traffic (gliders and various mixes of aircraft types and nearby airfields) including lower hour pilots under training.
Broadcasting of position reports is all very well but I fear some people over do that part, just listen out on 119.1 sometime to hear some of the mindless broadcasts that go on. Some people talk too much and clutter up the frequency, which means one of two things happen, people tune out or turn the volume down. I wonder sometimes that some pilots think that by continually talking, others will see them thereby absolving them of having to keep a vigilant look out.
There is no substitute for keeping a good look out at all times.
The RNZAF have trained quite satisfactorily in the areas around Ohakea, they have methods they use to help ensure separation. Perhaps some of those methods could be used.
This comment really had me baffled
All this discussion lead into others questions, as it was mentioned that the aircraft were at 90 degrees to each other. Is the Cherokee a suitable aircraft for training and ...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cloud Cutter
The airspace surrounding Mercer has become an MBZ now. I remember not too long ago when the guys at mercer asked us not to make radio calls to their frequency - complete u turn in that situation.
MOR
I agree entirly with what yo are saying about the last 500 ft of a forced landing. Occasionally a student will turn into wind to land and just drop out of the sky. Yeah experienced instructors should be able to tell if the student would get in, but the average student has no idea!
Also there is a clause in part 91.311 that allows flight below 500ft with a bona fide purpose - mine is teaching safer aviation to my student on a forced landing! Also current testing officers doing cpls are pretty much always going well below 500ft. There is actually a CAA document out regarding the bonafide purpose clause - they got a few laywers to have a read of it and make an informed legal position re FLWOPS below 500ft. It pretty much says that the bonafide purpose is reason enough.
rgds
6080ft
The airspace surrounding Mercer has become an MBZ now. I remember not too long ago when the guys at mercer asked us not to make radio calls to their frequency - complete u turn in that situation.
MOR
I agree entirly with what yo are saying about the last 500 ft of a forced landing. Occasionally a student will turn into wind to land and just drop out of the sky. Yeah experienced instructors should be able to tell if the student would get in, but the average student has no idea!
Also there is a clause in part 91.311 that allows flight below 500ft with a bona fide purpose - mine is teaching safer aviation to my student on a forced landing! Also current testing officers doing cpls are pretty much always going well below 500ft. There is actually a CAA document out regarding the bonafide purpose clause - they got a few laywers to have a read of it and make an informed legal position re FLWOPS below 500ft. It pretty much says that the bonafide purpose is reason enough.
rgds
6080ft
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks to NIKE who has posted a copy of the CAA document I was referring to in my last post.
it hs here - http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=210784
it hs here - http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=210784
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly, and my further point would be that they often don't believe you unless you show them that they wouldn't have made it. I used to think I had it all sussed out, until my instructor made me continue below 500'... not a nice feeling as the fence starts to rise in the windshield and you realise that you are well short with no way of stretching the glide... certainly got the message home to me.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Neiu Zeeeeland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you may have missed my point. While it might detract from the original point of this thread .....
As instructors there is an obligation to set examples and display high standards of professionalism (Not saying that it isn't done). Having an instructor continually flying a forced landing to 50ft to prove (to a student) whether or not the aircraft can land in a field really only has impact value if it is done once or twice, any more than that the student may consider it accepted practice whilst flying solo as well.
In an LFZ is fine, as it is a "controlled environment" - by that I mean a limit on the number of aircraft in the LFZ at any one time, use of the radio for position reports and a dual flight (extra pair of eyes -always good for SA).
I always found it preferable to practice simulated forced landings below 500ft into airfields or airstrips (How many have practiced into Pukekohe East airstrip?) as it provides a reduced element of risk. (BTW weren't Ardmore Flying School practising FLWOP in the LFZ when it lost power on the go-round???)
Outside of these areas, there are few controls, restrictions and often many aircraft carrying out similar exercises in the same area. How many instructors use the same field for forced landing practice as it has identifiable features, and is easy for the student to pick up the procedure - student then uses same field to practice, develop and hone technique .....
Add that to the reduction in general experience of the flight instructors (due largely to the rapid and large employment over the last year or so) and the proverbial holes in the swiss cheese start to line up.
If the sort of accident that occurred in Palmerston is to be prevented from happening again (eg Ardmore training area), the procedures must be developed and implemented by the instructors that use the training areas - NOT BY CAA.
As for the comment 'Is a cherokee suitable for flight training' I was referring to the lack of visibility due to the low wing .... but point taken.
It is unfortunate that it takes a tragedy such as this to make us sit up and admit that there is a problem. Let's hope that we can all develop an answer that can prevent any more from happening.
As instructors there is an obligation to set examples and display high standards of professionalism (Not saying that it isn't done). Having an instructor continually flying a forced landing to 50ft to prove (to a student) whether or not the aircraft can land in a field really only has impact value if it is done once or twice, any more than that the student may consider it accepted practice whilst flying solo as well.
In an LFZ is fine, as it is a "controlled environment" - by that I mean a limit on the number of aircraft in the LFZ at any one time, use of the radio for position reports and a dual flight (extra pair of eyes -always good for SA).
I always found it preferable to practice simulated forced landings below 500ft into airfields or airstrips (How many have practiced into Pukekohe East airstrip?) as it provides a reduced element of risk. (BTW weren't Ardmore Flying School practising FLWOP in the LFZ when it lost power on the go-round???)
Outside of these areas, there are few controls, restrictions and often many aircraft carrying out similar exercises in the same area. How many instructors use the same field for forced landing practice as it has identifiable features, and is easy for the student to pick up the procedure - student then uses same field to practice, develop and hone technique .....
Add that to the reduction in general experience of the flight instructors (due largely to the rapid and large employment over the last year or so) and the proverbial holes in the swiss cheese start to line up.
If the sort of accident that occurred in Palmerston is to be prevented from happening again (eg Ardmore training area), the procedures must be developed and implemented by the instructors that use the training areas - NOT BY CAA.
As for the comment 'Is a cherokee suitable for flight training' I was referring to the lack of visibility due to the low wing .... but point taken.
It is unfortunate that it takes a tragedy such as this to make us sit up and admit that there is a problem. Let's hope that we can all develop an answer that can prevent any more from happening.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having an instructor continually flying a forced landing to 50ft to prove (to a student) whether or not the aircraft can land in a field really only has impact value if it is done once or twice, any more than that the student may consider it accepted practice whilst flying solo as well.
As far as practising into strips is concerned, it considerably devalues the exercise as the student quickly learns the proper cues for the strip being used - cues that are absent if they have to do it for real. Instructors who use the same field for FLWOP practise are really short-changing their students.
A lot of this is personal opinion I guess, I found it to be true when I was instructing, but teaching others to fly is a game that is constantly evolving.
As an aside, I agree that the overall experience levels of instructors is dropping. I thought it might be fun to do some instructing again, put all those thousands of hours of airline flying in Europe to some use. Not for money, not for the hours, just for fun. However, the CAA make it such a complex and expensive exercise that it probably isn't worth it. The local club seems equally reticent to offer any part-time work, it seems they value experience as little as the CAA does.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shall we leave this thread to those who wish to discuss the recent accident?
For FLWOP discussion, see you all over here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=210784
O8
For FLWOP discussion, see you all over here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=210784
O8
MOR
Troll alert, but nice comeback. (But bees fly.This one don't)
Indigo duck, IMO the pa28 has excellent flight vis for training, sitting way up near the leading edge. I learned to fly in a 140. The only thing it didn't demo to well was spinning.
Troll alert, but nice comeback. (But bees fly.This one don't)
Indigo duck, IMO the pa28 has excellent flight vis for training, sitting way up near the leading edge. I learned to fly in a 140. The only thing it didn't demo to well was spinning.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who mentioned bees?
"put all those thousands of hours of airline flying in Europe to some use"
I'm sure the average beginner pilot would love to hear all about it too!
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I'm sure the average beginner pilot would love to hear all about it too!
bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 52
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gsf
There was a forced landing done by the Bay of Plenty Flight Centre a few years back. Straight into the sea just off Matakana island. Couldn't land on the beach as it was strewn with logs.
A back dated search helped me find it.
As the article stated, both pilots were unhurt.
There was a forced landing done by the Bay of Plenty Flight Centre a few years back. Straight into the sea just off Matakana island. Couldn't land on the beach as it was strewn with logs.
A back dated search helped me find it.
As the article stated, both pilots were unhurt.