Seneca Crash at Taupo

[MOR]

It takes many many years of good operating practice to build a rep as good as Christian's, and maybe only one uninformed idiot pontificating on a forum known to be frequented by journalists, to destroy the whole thing.

Luke, grow up. Everybody here is praising the quality of Christian Aviation Ministries, and it's pilots. Nobody is having a go a them. Every comment about them, and Steve, is overwhelmingly positive.

Some have quite rightly (but possibly in badly worded terms) pointed out the problems associated with SPIFR. This is simple fact and is amply supported by evidence. It isn't even an issue.

At the end of the day, an aircraft, that at this stage appears to have been serviceable, has flown into the side of a hill.

I have lost an acquaintance, and a good friend has lost a son; and there is a certain amount of grief associated with that.

However, I am not so blind, or unprofessional, that I cannot see the likelihood that this is CFIT and such an occurence is more likely under SPIFR. I still hope it turns out to be something else.

Words such as those in the third line of your post are completely innapropriate here, and you should edit them forthwith.

You seem to be pushing a larger applecart than anybody else. Read your post, and think again.

[Luke SkyToddler]

Righto MOR point taken, I'll edit that sentence since it seems to bother you, it was hardly central to the main argument.

I think YOU've completely missed MY point, that now is not an appropriate time to go engaging about statistical likelihoods of CFIT, pilot error, and unsafeness of SPIFR ops in general, before any kind of official pronouncement of what caused this particular crash was made.

I too, have experienced the loss of a very good mate on a similar SPIFR operation. Within hours we found ourselves in the middle of an enormous media beat up on our company, on the mental state and (superlatively good) skills of the pilot in question, and the dangers of flying SPIFR in general. It turns out post investigation, that the accident was caused by a technical fault completely unrelated to anything to do with issues of single crew or IFR, and there was nothing that one pilot or two or all the pilots in the world could have done to stop that plane from crashing. It didn't stop my mate's reputation being comprehensively smeared by a kangaroo court of so called TV reporters and aviation experts and all the usual hangers on, before anything official had been found. It's very easy for the offending media 'speculators' to publish an official retraction in the small print of some newspaper a year later, but the damage is always done by then in the minds of the public.

Maybe it was CFIT and maybe it wasn't. Maybe the lack of two pilots was a contributing factor and maybe it wasn't. The point is, that all pilots (and especially dead ones who are unable to defend themselves) should be deemed innocent until proven guilty. Sitting here bickering amongst ourselves about CFIT statistics and relative safety of SPIFR, is not going to help that process one little bit.

[atyourcervix73]

Goodluck Browney..where ever you are....a top bloke...a top mate.

Rest in Peace

[mattyj]

Funeral 9-2-05..1100 Steves church in Mt Eden.

[threedogtired]

We recently used Christian Aviation for a long NZ charter with the Sceneca and their Chieftain. Our staff member who accompanied the passengers could not praise the company enough - well maintained aircraft and pilots (including Steve) who were professional and obliging.

Having lost a number of friends over the years through aircraft accidents it never amazes me a the "armchair professionals" that pontificate about causes.

SUFFICE TO SAY THAT OUR COMPANY DESPITE OF THE INDUENDO ON THIS FORUM HAVE NO INTENTION OF CHANGING OPERATORS FOR AIRCRAFT REQUIREMENTS IN NZ.

CONDOLENCES TO STEVES FAMILY

[stillalbatross]

I can understand the emotion, I flew with him a while back and he was a very good operator.

For all you clowns giving SPIFR a slating (for what it's worth I have operated extensively both SPIFR in NZ and now I'm a captain on multi-turbine airline ops in Europe) I reckon multi crew ops can indeed be a blessing when the other guy is competent, but I have on occasion found myself wishing for the relatively benign safety of my little SPIFR Seneca when I'm out and about in real weather and the FO is a newly checked to line, non-English-first-language, still learning the ropes individual who's still at the stage of making a complete balls up of the checklists and RT let alone the handling, and is basically so far behind the aircraft he needs a tow rope. Remember that multi crew aircraft are certified that way because they are deemed sufficiently fast & complex that they NEED two pilots to get the job done. If I had the choice of sending my wife and kids on an SPIFR flight with a completely reputable outfit like Christian Aviation, or on one of these more interesting European airlines that have a money making sideshow selling buy-a-type-rating-and-line-training packages to wet behind the ears CPLs, I know what I'd choose.

What utter garbage but I'll reply anyway, your anology that there are times that SP is better than multi crew leads me to believe you're one of those people who refuses to wear a safety belt when out driving. In case there is a one in a million chance that in doing so you'll be thrown clear of the car in any accident even though this scenario occurs in under four percent of accidents (the occupant gets thrown through an open or smashed window). If your F/O is newly checked to line and still learning the ropes and out of his depth then there is a problem with the way your company operates and the level of competency it requires of your F/O, you getting misty eyed and running back to SPIFR isn't going to fix it nor does it have any relevance to this thread.

Your statement that two crew aircraft are certified that way because they need it is also garbage. The workload flying single pilot, no autopilot on a nonprecision approach into a dark hole on a crap night far exceeds anything required in a larger two crew operation. In fact you're not two crew, you've got a proper autopilot that should be able to manage the flightpath laterally and vertically. It's considerably more difficult to monitor in SPIFR when you're at the coalface.

What have European Airlines got to do with it? I said Air Nelson Vs. a SPIFR operator in NZ of which Christian would be one of the best. Two operators with experience and aircraft that meet all their air ops requirements flying on the same route.

If I'd started a thread on here asking why we continue with SPIFR in this day and age with it's high accident rate there would be about 50 replies asking if an accident just occurred.

The public want a degree of safety and the SPIFR record isn't getting any better, CAA should set the bar up accordingly and the general public should pay to get on that aircraft accordingly. If that's 20% 40% or 100% more to get an aircraft that meets all the requirements then so be it.

threedogtired, If you want to travel SPIFR and find the level of accidents acceptable to you and would be unhappy paying more to substantially reduce that accident risk then go ahead. Christian are a very good operator of that aircraft in that environment and I wouldn\'t recommend anyone else.

now is not an appropriate time to go engaging about statistical likelihoods of CFIT, pilot error, and unsafeness of SPIFR ops in general

When would be a good time to discuss the unsafeness of SPIFR Luke? Before then next one? After the last one? When it occurs with someone famous on board and ignites media attention?

The "good time to discuss it" has come and gone.

[threedogtired]

As I said so many armchair observations.

In Australia we operate 22 aircraft ranging from Metro III to Cessna 310 all SPIFR without incident throughout Australia, PNG and the furtherest most reaches of the Pacific.

This includes some of the vilest tropical weather.

Why bring up SPIFR, it is a fact of life of General Aviation including RPT below 9 passengers in the likes of Piper Chieftains.

The responses sound very much like a Government regulator who will say the safest flying is when all the aircarft are on the ground.

Safety is always easierly bettered with, simply upgrading the means of transport.

I'm sure that a charterer with 4 passengers would love to pay three times more for a turbo prop as opposed to a C310. In the real world the answer is no, and if the cost of the turboprop was forced on the charterer the simple answer is they probably wouldn't fly.

That is the real world of economics in which we all live.

[flyingkiwi]

Guys you are all barking up the wrong tree with your armchair analysis.

Firstly my heartfelt condolences to SB's family, DB and all the members of Christian Aviation, I had many dealings with them and they were probably NZs best GA charter operator.

As for your arguments about SPIFR, I could almost guarantee that was not the problem in this case. Some of you have made the comment "stick on the right track keep to your minima’s and you will never hit terrain", I agree in principle but you have never flown that particular approach. I have flown it many times (almost daily for a 3 year period) at it can be pretty scary.

The "AP" NDB suffers serious coastal effect from the lake that drags you towards Mt Te Aroha, what is worse and prob the case in this accident is when the "turn in" off the DME ARC is not indicated till well through the inbound track. CAA had been advised a few years ago about the inaccuracies of this approach but at the cost of putting a VOR or 2nd NDB in decided to do nothing. Be it a Senica or a Bandit or a Metro all would (could) be led into this trap.

A very tragic loss.

[MOR]

threedogtired

As I said so many armchair observations.

Well my "armchair" is the left seat of a commercial jet. Others here are in similar positions. Yours seems to be behind a desk, so please allow us a little latitude.

stillalbatross

Absolutely spot on.

All I would add is, the only good thing that can come from this accident is a searching analysis of the way the CAA regulates SPIFR. Not likely of course, but still...

flyingkiwi

Some of you have made the comment "stick on the right track keep to your minima’s and you will never hit terrain", I agree in principle but you have never flown that particular approach.

I have, but it doesn't matter. The approach gives you the appropriate margins. If you are unhappy about the safety of the approach, don't fly it. If you are at any time unsure of your position, go around. If you don't want to take a second crack at it, divert.

The NDB approach is regularly checked for accuracy, if it is outside limits, it would be withdrawn. If you look at the plate, you will find the crash location displaced about three miles from the approach centreline, and the chart has a clear warning about circling to the east. If you commence a missed approach at the right place on the NDB/DME ALFA (2D), that is five miles west of the crash site. Unless of course I have got my facts totally wrong.

There is always the GPS approach of course...

[flyingkiwi]

MOR

I too am in a commercial jet but not too long ago flew turboprops into AP every day, from the left seat.

Yes there are set tolerances but having seen the major distortions on the approach... on many occasions. i stand by my comments, The point i make is that if you were in IMC you would have no idea of the error. Especially on a single NDB DME approach you have no secondary data to back up your information. How would you know theres anything wrong!!

Yes fine to say do the GPS approach....If you have one... and why should you have to have one. The NDB approach should be adequate.

[Luke SkyToddler]

the only good thing that can come from this accident is a searching analysis of the way the CAA regulates SPIFR

For pity's sake, what has SPIFR got to do with anything? You DO NOT KNOW what happened to that Seneca and until you do, it's wrong, and immoral, and defamatory to the memory of that pilot, to sit here and use this crash as a building block for your little anti-SPIFR arguments.

As for

[my] statement that two crew aircraft are certified that way because they need it is also garbage. The workload flying single pilot, no autopilot on a nonprecision approach into a dark hole on a crap night far exceeds anything required in a larger two crew operation. In fact you're not two crew, you've got a proper autopilot that should be able to manage the flightpath laterally and vertically. It's considerably more difficult to monitor in SPIFR when you're at the coalface.

If you are operating ATOs single pilot, no autopilot then you are of course breaking the law. The only aircraft legally allowed to operate IFR without them are small multi crew types. Eagle operate dozens of flights every day without autopilots, SPIFR Senecas are not allowed the same luxury. The J31s I regularly operate across the North Sea are non autopilot equipped. And I maintain that the workload for a captain in this operation is much higher than it ever was, when I single crewed an approach to minimas in a PA34 ambulance into Wairoa at 3 am. The stress levels experienced are not necessarily the fault of the FO, it's possible to line train a person here in the Scottish summer without seeing a cloud or a breath of wind, and then come the North Sea winter they're into 4 months of snow, ice, 300 ft bases and 35 kt crosswinds every day. That is the reality of the operating environment we live in, and it's all perfectly legal, but hey at least it's not SINGLE PILOT so it must be safe right

It is in fact possible for multi crew operators to fly into the sides of hills as well. Have a think about Ansett at Palmie, the Dakota into the Kaimais or the DC10 at Erebus. Look at the causes of those individual accidents, and tell me how you would have CAA legislate against those.

Your single minded focus on the alleged shortcomings of SPIFR and the need to 'regulate' it out of existence, before any cause whatsoever of this crash has been found, is disturbing and it's something I would expect from a sensation seeking journalist rather than a professional aviator, who knows that air crashes whether they're single or multi crew, are nearly always complex things with many contributing factors that all came together at the wrong moment.

My objection is not about debating the rights and wrongs of SPIFR (although I would certainly not draw my legislative advice from a bunch of anonymous strangers on an internet professional pilots forum, who are just as likely to be plane spotters, journalists, flight sim buffs or armchair PPL crash investigators). My objection is to the nasty little whispering and speculating campaign that always goes on amongst the ill informed after a fatal accident of this nature. And at this stage we are all ill informed. No one knows what happened up there, so out of respect for a good man's reputation, we should all shut the hell up until we know something.

If it turns out that the accident was caused by a control jam, or a goose through the front window, or an instrument failure, or one of the million other things that could have bought that plane down which have nothing to do with pilot error or SPIFR or anything else, then I hope you have the grace to come back on here in a few months time and retract your statements.

[MOR]

The following has absolutely nothing to do with this accident. It is a general observation on the way in which we treat approaches. We do not know what happened to the CAM aircraft yet. It could have been anything. - MOR

flyingkiwi

OK I suppose it is then safe to say that you never did this approach in IMC?

Funny how when the approach is checked by whoever the CAA employs to do that, it is OK?

But leaving that aside, the only approach which is not on the opposite side of the NDB from Mt Tauhara is the NDB/DME BRAVO, which I imagine most people would join straight in if approaching from the north. However, assuming you join over the beacon, you are then required to maintain the outbound and inbound tracks within +/- five degrees (and the DME distances). If you cannot do this, or have a reasonable assurance that you are on track, you go around. It is the assumption that pilots will not continue an approach when uncertain of track or position, that makes them safe.

Luke Skytoddler

Our posts crossed, it seems. I\'m not sure if you were addressing yourself to me, but I\'ll answer anyway.

The only thing SPIFR has to do with anything is dependent on the cause of an accident. We all accept that (as far as I can tell). You could maybe make a case for better advice to passengers, but at the moment, that\'s about it.

Nobody has defamed Steve - quite the reverse.

Your single minded focus on the alleged shortcomings of SPIFR and the need to \'regulate\' it out of existence, before any cause whatsoever of this crash has been found, is disturbing

What is even more disturbing is your refusal to accept that SPIFR is not as inherently safe as a multi-crew operation (your operator excepted - your F/Os have clearly never spent much time in a simulator if you say that they don\'t get to see crap wx).

Everybody, except you, it seems, gets this. It has nothing in particular to do with this accident, it is simply a statistical fact.

My objection is to the nasty little whispering and speculating campaign that always goes on amongst the ill informed after a fatal accident of this nature.

Please indicate where this is taking place. It certainly isn\'t happening here.

...I hope you have the grace to come back on here in a few months time and retract your statements.

As, I hope, will you.

[flyingkiwi]

MOR

Im not going to argue the point as i also believe an investigation needs to be done, and i want to respect the memory of Steven.

However an aircraft approaching from AR would in fact be coming from the west and the easiest way to join for the Bravo approach is via the DME arc, this is where i have seen the most deviations especially situations with my RMI showing 5-10 degrees to go till the inbound while actually sitting on the extended centreline,...

I still flew the approach in IMC as i had seen it many times in VMC conditions and knew the peculiarities. CAA at one point asked for feedback from Taupo based IFR operators re the approach yet when we explained what was happening they still did not do anything.

Anyway we will see what the TAIC come up with.

All my thoughts to the families involved. They are personal friends.

[stillalbatross]

If you are operating ATOs single pilot, no autopilot then you are of course breaking the law

Dude, put down the crack pipe. If you flew a light twin you will be painfully aware how pathetic the "certified" autopilot is, it's good in a relatively straight line and that's about it. Marginally better than a good trim. It doesn't automatically fly an approach or a hold or a missed approach so it is completely useless when you want to have a good look at the charts while you're in the thick of it.

It is in fact possible for multi crew operators to fly into the sides of hills as well. Have a think about Ansett at Palmie, the Dakota into the Kaimais or the DC10 at Erebus. Look at the causes of those individual accidents, and tell me how you would have CAA legislate against those.

And put down the bong as well. No one is saying for an instance that multicrew aircraft don't crash but the level of accidents for SPIFR or even SP multi is unacceptable. You had to go back 40 odd years to bring up the DC3 for pete's sake, for SPIFR or VFR you only have to look at ZK-NCA at CHC airport, or ZK-TZC, or ZK-JAN in the past 3 years. Have a look at the TAIC website for recent accidents, it is plain spooky.

Your single minded focus on the alleged shortcomings of SPIFR and the need to 'regulate' it out of existence, before any cause whatsoever of this crash has been found, is disturbing and it's something I would expect from a sensation seeking journalist rather than a professional aviator, who knows that air crashes whether they're single or multi crew, are nearly always complex things with many contributing factors that all came together at the wrong moment.

SPIFR accidents occur too often, it is that simple. Get rid of it in it's present form and you get rid of a lot of accidents, it ain't rocket science. As I said before, if Joe Public wants to charter an aircraft and knock about the traps, he get's a crew operating an aircraft with a fully functioning autopilot, GPS, EGPWS and a level of safety every bit as good as a scheduled service ATO. Or he rides the bus. He deserves a level of safety as good as any scheduled operator (as does the crew operating the charter aircraft) and he should be paying for it whether he likes to or not.

My objection is not about debating the rights and wrongs of SPIFR

The only "right" about SPIFR in it's present form is that it's cheaper until there's an accident.

[haughtney1]

Having read this thread with interest and sadness (I knew Steve Brown...from a few years back) can we all show a little more respect and just let the TAIC get on with it?

Albatross..grow up buddy, a little less reference to crackpipes and weed would go a long way to improving your credibility..as it is.....Luke has plenty of experience in light twins (just saying to add some more credibility to what he has to say..but NOT taking sides here)

MOR, I know your an experienced operator, and I respect your comments and assessments that I've viewed to date, I would take issue however with your assertion about SPIFR Ops. More fatalities occur on multi-crew a/c worldwide than single crew ops....purely on that basis, you are more likely to be hurt or killed in a medium T/P or Jet..than say a Seneca..etc. Having said all that and to put this issue into perspective....statistically, putting your pants on is more of a risk than flying on public transport.
I would concede however that NZ like certain parts of Europe, the Northern US, and Canada, have a particular problem with accident RATES pertaining to GA Ops. Personally IMHO I believe this has far more to do with risk management, training, and the ability and confidence to be aware and understand the unforgiving environment in which these SPIFR (IMC) accidents occur.
It is to simplistic to say GA is inherently more risky. I believe it is more accurate to say GA operators are unable to offer the safety margins enjoyed by the larger operators. Economics, operational constraints, performance issues as well as a host of other poorly understood imponderables all do their little bit to erode safety.
The fact that this accident seems to have polarised opinions is perhaps indicative of the differences that we all percieve in day to day Ops. I myself fly T/P's single crew, and am now about to fly Heavy jets multi-crew, in both instances I view the risk as minimal...Steve Brown who is no longer here to defend himself would probably have had an opinion as well. Perhaps its time we all took a step back and let the investigators get on with it..and in the process cool off a bit.

Just my thoughts and opinions..


cheers H

[MOR]

More fatalities occur on multi-crew a/c worldwide than single crew ops....purely on that basis, you are more likely to be hurt or killed in a medium T/P or Jet..than say a Seneca..etc.

You may be right, but then from a fatalities persective, one 747 crashing has about the same level of fatalities as 80-odd SPIFR accidents, so it is a bit of a spurious statistic.

.. more to do with risk management, training, and the ability and confidence to be aware and understand the unforgiving environment in which these SPIFR (IMC) accidents occur.

I absolutely agree with you, however those very things are most likely to be missing in SPIFR. When I started out, I was flying in marginal weather, with little hard IFR experience, and little aviation experience in general. Although I was flying for a reputable operator, I was under no illusions regarding the pressures to get the job done - mostly financial ones. There are very, very few SPIFR operators who pay more than lip service to training. Compare this to the corporate environment, where the aircraft may be a similar size, but it is likely to very well equipped and flown by top-notch people who have been extensively trained. Compare the accident rate between corporate flights, and SPIFR flights in similar aircraft, and you will see my point. You have to do this using US stats as we don't really have a lot of corporate aircraft in NZ; however, in the US, you will find Learjets and the like being operated SPIFR, as well as corporate two-crew, so the figures are particularly valid.

As an aside, when training, particularly line training of new guys, I often found the SPIFR guys were the most able pilots, but also the most prone to taking risks. They often had to un-learn a lot of bad habits. I also have to say that I would find it very hard, as a jet training captain, to work in their world - it is a different skill set.

It is a pity we can't seperate this into two threads, because this discussion needs to be had.

Going back to the subject of pressure, I should point out here that I do not believe for a second that there were any financial pressures, or in fact any external pressures, in this accident.

[always inverted]

I agree with the last post, I would be fairly confident to say that there would not have been any pressure to get the job done.
CHN don't cut any corners.
Steve was an excellent pilot and I had the privelage of flying with him a few times.
As for the NDB/DME BRAVO app at Taupo, in the last 12 months I must have flown that app about 45-50 times,
The wind onthat day would have been fron the se- guessing as I was there the day before, so he would have been blown away from MT TAHARA, if not holding drift to the left.

Steve was not the sort of guy to take risks, and the company would not have done so to him either.

I also know a couple of things about the crash that alot don't so I hope that when it all comes out those with who jump into ill-informed assumtions of what happened come back and retract their comments !

I also think that people need to keep the coments on the post topic not on the pros and cons of SPIFR.

[splatgothebugs]

Condolences to the pilots family and the company. I personally didn't know the pilot or anybody in CHN but is indeed another that didn't need to perish.

MOR

You genrally have very well informed opinions but unfortunatley I think you may be speaking of something you nothing about this time.

Have you ever carried out any approach into AP? more to the point have you done the BRAVO app, I think not!

Every pilot who works in and out of AP knows what this approach is like and exercises extreme caution on it as FLYING KIWI POINTED OUT.

You mentioned that if the approach was unsafe CAA would not allow it, this is also not correct and you will only have to find the numerous reports and recommedations on AP to see that they move far to slowly. Looking even further you could point out the PM VOR/DME 25 app which is exteremly dangerous and still hasn't been ammended or removed.

I think before we all start pointing fingers that if this topic of SPIFR and CFIT is to be discussed any further perhaps a new thread should be made and leave this one to what it was originally posted for

splat

[MOR]

I have flown that approach into AP, and sure it looks interesting, but you have to be a long way off track to be in danger.

What you really need to quantify is WHY you consider these approaches dangerous, and then whether or not you can actually infringe a clearance whilst having an indication that you are on the approach profile.

If they were as dangerous as you suggest, any self-respecting airline or charter operator would refuse to carry out that approach.

What you are actually saying is that the CAA, whilst knowing that these approaches are actually dangerous (via calibration information), wilfully refuses to either insist they are fixed, or withdraw them. I don't believe that for a minute, and I challenge you to repeat that accusation to the media using your real name.

Why would the CAA open themselves up to some serious litigation?

All the CAA have to do is issue a NOTAM and those approaches are history. There is no real cost to the CAA, and no reason NOT to do it.

I have carried out thousands of approaches far more difficult than AP - have a look at Innsbruck, Calvi, Sumburgh or for that matter London City if you want to see approaches that get very close to terrain.

Just out of interest, how often do you guys get EGPWS warnings going into AP?

[flyingkiwi]

No NDB approach is "hard" Dangerous is a different matter. As an example of CAA's slow action take a look at what happened up in WR. The approach use to be a single NDB approach flown past Marsden point down the harbor, how many years did it take before CAA realised that the WR NDB was so prone to inaccuracies that they finally put in a second NDB "SF" and made it a twin NDB approach.

MOR the guys flying the Beech's wont get EGPWS's because they are also GPS equipped, we are talking good old raw data ADFs.

I have just been out for dinner with another colleague ex Eagle and discussed the approach with him and he said the same thing as I have already posted, A false turn on of 5-10 Degrees on a 12 mile arc equate to an error of up to 2 miles which would start putting you pretty close to certain hills.

Anyway im only speaking from doing that particular approach on average 4 times a week for 4 years not approaches in Innsbruck.