Pilot faced critical choice
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Aus
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mor
This paragraph indicates that the Investigator gave his opinion to an open court with that opinion being tested by the Coroner, Counsel assisting him and the various Counsels acting for interested parties.
As such I envisage that his opinion has been subjected to more strenuous testing than given to your opinion.
I guess you may be right in that the investigator was not an eyewitness, but I gather that he may have attended the scene, spoken first hand to witnesses, examined the wreck, etc.
Did you follow the same procedure or was your investigation run by virtue of newspaper reports, bulletin board rumours and your own supposition.
Perhaps you may like to enlighten us to that small matter.
THE chief investigator who probed 2002's fatal plane crash on Hamilton Island expressed sympathy for the pilot yesterday, telling a coronial hearing the young aviator was under enormous pressure to correct a problem largely out of his control
As such I envisage that his opinion has been subjected to more strenuous testing than given to your opinion.
My conclusion is different to that of the investigator, however we are both working from the same basic information - the investigator was not an eyewitness
Did you follow the same procedure or was your investigation run by virtue of newspaper reports, bulletin board rumours and your own supposition.
Perhaps you may like to enlighten us to that small matter.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Certainly.
Sure, but his opinion is still just an opinion, and he can be wrong, particularly when it comes to professional aviation matters - it depends who he talks to. About the substantive facts, there is no argument, and that is what the inquest is designed to establish. One of the bits that concerns me is:
"Mr Sangston said it was true that if the pilot had not made such a steep right-hand turn, the accident would not have happened but he wouldn't class it as an "error".
"I would suggest there are so many imponderables . . . error is probably a strong word I wouldn't use," he said."
So here he is saying that the pilot attempted a manouever that directly resulted in a crash, and yet it isn't an "error". What the hell is it then?
The scene may be helpful, but then so are photos of the scene. There really wasn't much to look at, was there? He did speak to witnesses, and reproduced their testimony in full, so no advantage there. I'm sure he examined the wreck, but what do you think he learned from that? An aircraft crashed after an engine problem. He himself tells you that the wreck is irrelevant, as the cause of the accident was an attempted steep turn towards rising ground - nothing to do with the aircraft, other than in a secondary sense.
If the pilot had done what he was trained to do, there is a 95% chance that he would be alive and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
So, no, my procedure was to read his report, where he clearly states that the cause of the accident was an attempted steep turn towards rising ground following an engine problem.
The point of contention is that he, presumably not a professional pilot, is prepared to excuse and sugar-coat the actions of the pilot, and I am not. It is that simple.
As such I envisage that his opinion has been subjected to more strenuous testing than given to your opinion.
"Mr Sangston said it was true that if the pilot had not made such a steep right-hand turn, the accident would not have happened but he wouldn't class it as an "error".
"I would suggest there are so many imponderables . . . error is probably a strong word I wouldn't use," he said."
So here he is saying that the pilot attempted a manouever that directly resulted in a crash, and yet it isn't an "error". What the hell is it then?
but I gather that he may have attended the scene, spoken first hand to witnesses, examined the wreck, etc.
If the pilot had done what he was trained to do, there is a 95% chance that he would be alive and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
So, no, my procedure was to read his report, where he clearly states that the cause of the accident was an attempted steep turn towards rising ground following an engine problem.
The point of contention is that he, presumably not a professional pilot, is prepared to excuse and sugar-coat the actions of the pilot, and I am not. It is that simple.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect to those jumping to the defense of the pilot, I have read nothing in MOR’s posts other than disagreement with the comments of the INVESTIGATOR.
The pilot was under stress and he did what he did, that is accepted. Non of us can say for sure what we would have done in the same situation. On the other hand, the investigator, who has the benefit of hindsight and time to digest the factors involved, has made incorrect commentary by all accounts.
The pilot was under stress and he did what he did, that is accepted. Non of us can say for sure what we would have done in the same situation. On the other hand, the investigator, who has the benefit of hindsight and time to digest the factors involved, has made incorrect commentary by all accounts.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Queensland Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of seconds of engine power and he would be touted a hero for saving people from certain drowning. Thats the spin that the press would've been put on it.
Instead his flying skill is in question and the press have fastened onto a dubious alcohol & drug question.
I believe the ATSB investigator got it right.
Who's to judge a dead pilots actions without CVR and FDR?. Certainly not you MOR.
Instead his flying skill is in question and the press have fastened onto a dubious alcohol & drug question.
I believe the ATSB investigator got it right.
Who's to judge a dead pilots actions without CVR and FDR?. Certainly not you MOR.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang in there MOR I have seen nothing in your posts but common sense, it may have upset some, but you simply cant argue with CDF.
is NOT taught in EFATO 101 any more than "split second decisions" have any place in the cockpit, you have, under those circumstances, a 50/50 chance at the very best, of getting it right. 
If you think you have to apply that as a decision making process then the ONLY answer is straight ahead and finding the least worst alighting place and alighting as slow as it is possible WHILST RETAINING CONTROL UNTIL THE NOISE STOPS. The insurance company owns the sircraft your ONLY responsibility from then on is to do the best for your pax.
2B1ASK1 welcome back from your 3 month sojourn, last we heard from you, you were enroute to Mascot at high speed for a 3 month overseas "consultancy" sojourn. I hope the rest has helped, but it still hasn't cured your propensity for non sequiturs. You should get your ghost writer, you know, the one who penned your going overseas exit speech, to edit it for you.
Horror indeed.
Personally I cant see what was the "Critical Choice". ?
an attempted steep turn towards rising ground following an engine problem.
If you think you have to apply that as a decision making process then the ONLY answer is straight ahead and finding the least worst alighting place and alighting as slow as it is possible WHILST RETAINING CONTROL UNTIL THE NOISE STOPS. The insurance company owns the sircraft your ONLY responsibility from then on is to do the best for your pax.
2B1ASK1 welcome back from your 3 month sojourn, last we heard from you, you were enroute to Mascot at high speed for a 3 month overseas "consultancy" sojourn. I hope the rest has helped, but it still hasn't cured your propensity for non sequiturs. You should get your ghost writer, you know, the one who penned your going overseas exit speech, to edit it for you.
Horror indeed.
The whole point is that you shouldn't make a split-second decision - do what your training told you to do. if he had done that, he would probably be alive now.
Personally I cant see what was the "Critical Choice". ?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do many civvy training operations teach Pre-takeoff briefs ?
e.g. engine failure from brakes release till gear retraction - land ahead, from gear retraction to xxx feet land ahead, above xxx feet turn back.. etc"... so the decision is made when you aren't stressed and have had time to think about it?
Welcome to the debate!!!
Woomera
e.g. engine failure from brakes release till gear retraction - land ahead, from gear retraction to xxx feet land ahead, above xxx feet turn back.. etc"... so the decision is made when you aren't stressed and have had time to think about it?
Welcome to the debate!!!
Woomera
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impartially re-reading this thread and with out expressing any view on the accident or ATSB Report, I feel MOR is conducting a professional debate within the confines of this professional aviation forum.
Perhaps, if one considers all views, there just may be lessons here for others who read this thread?
Woomera
Perhaps, if one considers all views, there just may be lessons here for others who read this thread?
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 30th Dec 2005 at 10:26.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grnd Power
Was that opinion "tested" or simply accepted without further explanation?
I wonder whether the investigator formed his opinion solely in light of all the all circumstances that existed on that particular day and under all the circumstances that existed at that time, or whether had the question been phrased differently, would he have given a different response?
I suspect his response may have been different. Maybe we'll never know.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE chief investigator who probed 2002's fatal plane crash on Hamilton Island expressed sympathy for the pilot yesterday, telling a coronial hearing the young aviator was under enormous pressure to correct a problem largely out of his control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This paragraph indicates that the Investigator gave his opinion to an open court with that opinion being tested by the Coroner, Counsel assisting him and the various Counsels acting for interested parties.
As such I envisage that his opinion has been subjected to more strenuous testing than given to your opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE chief investigator who probed 2002's fatal plane crash on Hamilton Island expressed sympathy for the pilot yesterday, telling a coronial hearing the young aviator was under enormous pressure to correct a problem largely out of his control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This paragraph indicates that the Investigator gave his opinion to an open court with that opinion being tested by the Coroner, Counsel assisting him and the various Counsels acting for interested parties.
As such I envisage that his opinion has been subjected to more strenuous testing than given to your opinion.
I wonder whether the investigator formed his opinion solely in light of all the all circumstances that existed on that particular day and under all the circumstances that existed at that time, or whether had the question been phrased differently, would he have given a different response?
I suspect his response may have been different. Maybe we'll never know.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who's to judge a dead pilots actions without CVR and FDR?. Certainly not you MOR.
You don't need a CVR or an FDR for this. It is an elementary error. You learn it from the beginning of your flying training, and it gets re-inforced at each subsequent check (hopefully). Of the situations that kill pilots with great regularity, one of the common ones is attempting a steep turn near the ground, particularly when airspeed is decaying. Think about it. If you are attempting a steep turn at any altitude, what do you add as you enter the turn? POWER and BACK PRESSURE. What is the one thing you can't add with a sick engine? POWER. What do you really not want to apply with decaying airspeed? BACK PRESSURE. Now try the same exercise near the ground. Steep turn + no power = decaying airspeed and increased stall speed. This is all basic stuff. That is why any instructor worthy of the name will always teach DON'T TURN BACK - land straight ahead, under control, as gaunty said.
The fate of this aircraft and its occupants was sealed the second the pilot decided to try something he was trained NOT to do.
I just find it incredible that so many people seem to want to ignore these fundamentals. Even worse, the fact that some of you find his actions excusable tells me you will likely make the same error one day.
When it was decided that the standard teaching for an EFATO should be "land straight ahead", it wasn't done from a theoretical standpoint. It was done because so many people had died trying to turn back.
Some of you are saying, more or less, that the pilot can be excused as, after all, he is only human, he was under stress, he had to make a split-second decision, and he was just unlucky that it didn't work out.
I say that, as a professional pilot, he should have been able to handle the stress, he should never have made a split-second decision, and luck has nothing to do with it IF YOU CHOOSE TO FOLLOW YOUR TRAINING.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
Dunno where Sam Whittleson is now, but he and I spent an hour or so of my money one fine sunny day in a Decathlon, at a safe altitude, trying to see if it was possible to get around and back, under control from 500ft.
The 180HP Decathlon is a fine aerobatic aircraft and both of us quite current, having just come back from some serious inverted routines.
Tandem configuration, nominating the hard deck, taking turns to "fail" the engine in a TO climb config so no anticipation available.
I'm here to tell you that if you hold your mouth exactly the right way, after a lot of practice and some fairly radical manouevers it is just possible to get around from 500ft........... maybe.
recovering 180 degrees, max concentration, accurate flying, with max alpha, concentrating on keeping the ball dead in the centre, nibbling at the stall all the way round to 0 ft AGL stall warning braying. Flat runway.....maybe untidy and a bit of a hard landing if you are real lucky.
Rising terrain??? don't even think about it you are fresh out of alpha.
And either way if you screw it up, which you will, you will lose control, the aircraft will flick over and rotate in the opposite direction, which gets you totally disoriented as the aircraft goes vertical and starts spinning and you'll still be pulling, which might just flick you over the other way, as you hit the ground.
So if you want to roll the dice, go ahead, just check with your pax first to see how they feel about backing your skill against those odds.
Better still as PAF says just do it the way you were, hopefully, trained and make all your decisions before you leave the ground.
Geeez I just cant believe this "horror" crapola. and the guy runs a flight school yet.
Dunno where Sam Whittleson is now, but he and I spent an hour or so of my money one fine sunny day in a Decathlon, at a safe altitude, trying to see if it was possible to get around and back, under control from 500ft.
The 180HP Decathlon is a fine aerobatic aircraft and both of us quite current, having just come back from some serious inverted routines.
Tandem configuration, nominating the hard deck, taking turns to "fail" the engine in a TO climb config so no anticipation available.
I'm here to tell you that if you hold your mouth exactly the right way, after a lot of practice and some fairly radical manouevers it is just possible to get around from 500ft........... maybe.
recovering 180 degrees, max concentration, accurate flying, with max alpha, concentrating on keeping the ball dead in the centre, nibbling at the stall all the way round to 0 ft AGL stall warning braying. Flat runway.....maybe untidy and a bit of a hard landing if you are real lucky.Rising terrain??? don't even think about it you are fresh out of alpha.
And either way if you screw it up, which you will, you will lose control, the aircraft will flick over and rotate in the opposite direction, which gets you totally disoriented as the aircraft goes vertical and starts spinning and you'll still be pulling, which might just flick you over the other way, as you hit the ground.
So if you want to roll the dice, go ahead, just check with your pax first to see how they feel about backing your skill against those odds.
Better still as PAF says just do it the way you were, hopefully, trained and make all your decisions before you leave the ground.
Geeez I just cant believe this "horror" crapola.
and the guy runs a flight school yet.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
Lets separate emotion from this arguement. It seems pretty clear this poor chap was well liked by those who knew him and were his friends.
Simple fact..EFATO at low altitude=land ahead within a 30 degree arc of the extended centre-line, no time for split second thinking, just a practised and professional response to the situation as presented.
MOR has it right, this fellow didn't, the rest is history.
I dont personally believe that findings like these are likely to contribute in any effective way to improving flight safety unless they are presented in a rational rather than emotive context.
Simple fact..EFATO at low altitude=land ahead within a 30 degree arc of the extended centre-line, no time for split second thinking, just a practised and professional response to the situation as presented.
MOR has it right, this fellow didn't, the rest is history.
I dont personally believe that findings like these are likely to contribute in any effective way to improving flight safety unless they are presented in a rational rather than emotive context.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that some of you folk are forgetting that Mr. Morris was not the only one killed in this accident. FIVE other folks lost their lives as a result of this tragedy. I’d like to stick up for the deceased passengers just as much as you’d like to stick up for Mr. Morris!
I’m very sad that this young man lost his life, but I am just as sad that the others died too. And, I bet if one of the passengers was your loved one the shoe would be on the other foot!
I totally agree that Mr. Morris was in a terrible situation. And yes, a few of us may too have made the wrong decision. That doesn’t warrant defending him with total abandonment of the reality. He made a decision that was fatal, and that is a fact.
It was stated that Mr. Morris may have been under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol? Could this have caused judgment errors? If this was the case (which I acknowledge it may not have been) he doesn’t deserve defending! Please correct me if this possibility has been ruled out. Flying under the influence of substances is irresponsible and plain STUPID!
IBR, can I ask you a question? How would you feel if it was your loved one/mate sitting in the back, not in the front left-hand seat?
I’m very sad that this young man lost his life, but I am just as sad that the others died too. And, I bet if one of the passengers was your loved one the shoe would be on the other foot!
I totally agree that Mr. Morris was in a terrible situation. And yes, a few of us may too have made the wrong decision. That doesn’t warrant defending him with total abandonment of the reality. He made a decision that was fatal, and that is a fact.
It was stated that Mr. Morris may have been under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol? Could this have caused judgment errors? If this was the case (which I acknowledge it may not have been) he doesn’t deserve defending! Please correct me if this possibility has been ruled out. Flying under the influence of substances is irresponsible and plain STUPID!
IBR, can I ask you a question? How would you feel if it was your loved one/mate sitting in the back, not in the front left-hand seat?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr. Morris may have been under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol?
Gaunty:
It\'s a good point . I remember seeing some military / maybe news footage of a military ejection. The reporter asked :
\"When did you make the decision to eject\"
Pilot: \"10 years ago\".
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was this young man one of those who had never experienced a fully developed spin? Had he learnt how to prevent spins, and recover from them?
Did he really understand the danger of what he did? Or was he expected to just blindly follow the teaching of a "silly old CFI", merely because he was told to?
Did he really understand the danger of what he did? Or was he expected to just blindly follow the teaching of a "silly old CFI", merely because he was told to?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oz
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pass-A-Frozo, if you are going to quote me, at least make the effort to quote me correctly.
I did NOT simply say "Mr. Morris may have been under the influence......." as if it that was MY personal opinion.
There were many reports (based on toxicology results) indicating this may have been the case.
To clarify, I said "It was stated that Mr. Morris may have been under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol"
It's fair to leave the substance subject alone, just don't twist my words...
I did NOT simply say "Mr. Morris may have been under the influence......." as if it that was MY personal opinion.
There were many reports (based on toxicology results) indicating this may have been the case.
To clarify, I said "It was stated that Mr. Morris may have been under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol"
It's fair to leave the substance subject alone, just don't twist my words...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: 45 south
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Pilot faced critical choice
Everyone knows that the MEDIA have a tendency to get things wrong, perhaps we should spend a bit more time educating them.
W
W
Last edited by Woomera; 5th Jan 2006 at 23:15.
