Mount Hotham crash Coroners Inquest
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oz Trailer
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mount Hotham crash Coroners Inquest
The Geelong Advertiser
OK then - that explains it !!!
Fair enough.
TB
An investigation following the crash revealed a bolt that connected the throttle was missing.
Mr Macgillivray said the pilot did not breach aviation regulations when he flew from Essendon to Mount Hotham despite the weather conditions, which he described as "extreme".
The inquest was this week told aviation authorities monitored Mr Lee's flying practices for several years and he had received reprimands for flying low at night and into controlled airspaces.
Mr Macgillivray said the infringements were more "carelessness" than an actual piloting problem.
"I don't see safety breaches contributed to the accident," he said.
Mr Macgillivray said he believed the engine had cut out.
"The propeller was not being driven by any significant power at the time of impact," he said.
The inquest was this week told aviation authorities monitored Mr Lee's flying practices for several years and he had received reprimands for flying low at night and into controlled airspaces.
Mr Macgillivray said the infringements were more "carelessness" than an actual piloting problem.
"I don't see safety breaches contributed to the accident," he said.
Mr Macgillivray said he believed the engine had cut out.
"The propeller was not being driven by any significant power at the time of impact," he said.
TB
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes but the ATSB has been wrong before? Perhaps they had their minds made up before they investigated (based on RL's history), and didn't do a thorough job? It's possible.
Di
Di
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Di, your thinking is way off the mark. Controversial yes, valid, no.
Sound like they left a fair bit of stuff up on the hill.
Di
Di, whether I reckon the ATSB is or is not perfect is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the ATSB procedures be robust enough to uncover any errors or irregularities during the normal course of any investigation and that includes any subsequent review. Yes, there have been slipups in the past, hopefully the procedures will ensure there won't be any in the future.
As for 'leaving a fair bit of stuff up on the hill", unless the 'stuff' is evidence and is required to be 'stored' as such, anything else belongs to the insurance company or the owner and it is their responsibility to clean up their 'mess'.
As for 'leaving a fair bit of stuff up on the hill", unless the 'stuff' is evidence and is required to be 'stored' as such, anything else belongs to the insurance company or the owner and it is their responsibility to clean up their 'mess'.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC
Thanks for your feedback.
I agree - your opinion is irrelevant. So is mine. So what?
What is relevant is that there is not much confidence around the place that the ATSB can be relied on to get it right often enough.
I just find it a bit inconsistant what they left on the hill compared with other accidents which have occurred. The owner and insurer had to get it down years later.
Yes lets all "hope" the "procedures" are OK now and everyone can rest assured like you rather than rest in peace like others. I'm not holding my breath. The Govt need to get serious about funding and then we may get some better safety outcomes.
Di
Thanks for your feedback.
I agree - your opinion is irrelevant. So is mine. So what?
What is relevant is that there is not much confidence around the place that the ATSB can be relied on to get it right often enough.
I just find it a bit inconsistant what they left on the hill compared with other accidents which have occurred. The owner and insurer had to get it down years later.
Yes lets all "hope" the "procedures" are OK now and everyone can rest assured like you rather than rest in peace like others. I'm not holding my breath. The Govt need to get serious about funding and then we may get some better safety outcomes.
Di
Di- You say the ATSB has been wrong before, I would be interested in your examples of where they were wrong. When the final report was released on this accident the pilot's wife and a lawyer went very public with "new information" that proved that the investigation had got it wrong. The ATSB then released a supplementary report which backed up the original analysis that the pilot engaged in risky behaviour and had the radar plots to prove it. As the original investigation proved that the engines were delivering power at the time of impact there was no need to take any wreckage back to Canberra for analysis. It is standard practice that after the investigation that the wreckage is then the responsibility of the owner which is usually the insurance company. Who owns a car wreck after the insurance has been paid?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two most obvious examples are the Whyalla Airlines crash and the Central Air "Ghost Flight". I'm sure there are others less publicised.
It is obvious that the pilot engaged in risky behaviour - as it seems was his want. This does not mean that there were not other possible causes and contributing factors. The ATSB should be thoroughly investigating every serious accident such as this one to find out all the causes. The relatives of the deceased passengers deserve that much. That's all I'm saying.
On your insurance comments - if you get drunk and write off your car, I'm sure you will find the insurer will not to be too interested in what you do with the remains of your car.
Di
It is obvious that the pilot engaged in risky behaviour - as it seems was his want. This does not mean that there were not other possible causes and contributing factors. The ATSB should be thoroughly investigating every serious accident such as this one to find out all the causes. The relatives of the deceased passengers deserve that much. That's all I'm saying.
On your insurance comments - if you get drunk and write off your car, I'm sure you will find the insurer will not to be too interested in what you do with the remains of your car.
Di
Di.
The ATSB does NOT clean up an accident site. That is the responsibility of the owner, their delegate being the insurance company or some other delegate of the estate.
So as you say "Sound like they left a fair bit of stuff up on the hill" refers to the owner of the remains of the aircraft in question.
Your comment regarding your car, remains exactly that, YOUR car, your mess on the side of a hill. All the same
The ATSB does NOT clean up an accident site. That is the responsibility of the owner, their delegate being the insurance company or some other delegate of the estate.
So as you say "Sound like they left a fair bit of stuff up on the hill" refers to the owner of the remains of the aircraft in question.
Your comment regarding your car, remains exactly that, YOUR car, your mess on the side of a hill. All the same
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC,
Oh for crying out loud.
I have not said the ATSB should clean up the site. I am simply saying they should take what they need to do a proper investigation.
I know what they left behind - and in my opinion they should have taken much more with them and conducted a more thorough investigation.
Di OUT!
Oh for crying out loud.
I have not said the ATSB should clean up the site. I am simply saying they should take what they need to do a proper investigation.
I know what they left behind - and in my opinion they should have taken much more with them and conducted a more thorough investigation.
Di OUT!
Last edited by Diatryma; 25th May 2009 at 05:22. Reason: spelling
Oh dear Di,
So who is the they you are refering to?
And:
You say
However you earlier admitted,
You said it.
You appear to believe you know better than those involved at the ATSB. I'll tell you what, rather than prattling on here on PPRuNe, how about you take it up with the Bureau and give them the benefit of you knowledge.
Please.
So you reckon the ATSB are perfect and it not at all possible that they stuffed this up?
Sound like they left a fair bit of stuff up on the hill.
Sound like they left a fair bit of stuff up on the hill.
And:
You say
in my opinion they should have taken much more with them and conducted a more thorough investigation
However you earlier admitted,
your opinion is irrelevant. So is mine. So what
You appear to believe you know better than those involved at the ATSB. I'll tell you what, rather than prattling on here on PPRuNe, how about you take it up with the Bureau and give them the benefit of you knowledge.
Please.
Di I am genuinly interested in what you think they should have taken from the site that would have given them a different result. Don't forget that if you were up there well after the investigation any evidence would have been less credible than when the ATSB were up there. If you are referring to the prop hubs I think the supplementary report dealt with that. The prop hubs were the subject of speculation by John Eacott who went up there after the snow melted. He stated on pprune that in his opinion the blades were feathered but the blades had actually separated from the hub so he was basing his opinion on tainted evidence.
CC-At the end of the day we are all just prattling on pprune so why don't you play the ball and not the man.
CC-At the end of the day we are all just prattling on pprune so why don't you play the ball and not the man.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC - I thought what I said was reasonably simple to comprehend, but anyway....... you have a good day.
Thanks for your support Lookleft - LOL.
Yes I am talking about the prop hubs, blades and the like - and perhaps the exhaust manifolds.
- exactly.
I'm not saying the result WOULD have been different. My point is we will never know, and that they should have taken more away with them rather than leaving it to the pilots loved ones and/ or JE to do what they could down the track... well after the event.
I don't think that's being overly controversial, however I sincerely apologise in advance if there is anything that I have said which causes offence....!
Di
(ps:)
Thanks for your support Lookleft - LOL.
Yes I am talking about the prop hubs, blades and the like - and perhaps the exhaust manifolds.
if you were up there well after the investigation any evidence would have been less credible than when the ATSB were up there
I am genuinly interested in what you think they should have taken from the site that would have given them a different result
I don't think that's being overly controversial, however I sincerely apologise in advance if there is anything that I have said which causes offence....!
Di
(ps:
)
Originally Posted by LookLeft
The prop hubs were the subject of speculation by John Eacott who went up there after the snow melted. He stated on PPRuNe that in his opinion the blades were feathered but the blades had actually separated from the hub so he was basing his opinion on tainted evidence.
However, within reason, I'm sure that I made the following points:
I was there at the time of the crash (before the blizzard arrived at Hotham), and visited the site shortly after, with snow still deep on the ground. I also went on the 26th July 2005 when the snow started to melt, revealing stuff that was missed during the investigation. After the ski season, I lifted one engine from the site by helicopter, for further investigation.
My photos of the wreck (which were posted previously, taken on the 26th July) show the props and engines. All the props are/were still attached to the hubs: none broke off. One engine has the props bent from the root, whilst the other has two virtually undamaged props and one slightly bent.
I'm overseas at the moment, but I'll check further when I get home.