Pilot faced critical choice
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Eastern Oz
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot faced critical choice
Over the past 2-3 years, the pilot involved in this accident has been hung out to dry by the media. This Courier Mail article may at least give his family a peaceful Christmes.
Pilot faced critical choice
Amanda Watt
21dec05
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.
Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigator-in-charge Ian Sangston said Andrew Morris, 27, had to make a split-second decision whether to ditch the plane in water or try to get safely back to land after the engine of his light plane suffered an "intermittent abnormality" seconds after takeoff from the airstrip.
The Piper Cherokee – which was about to make the regular five-minute shuttle to Lindeman Island – crashed into the mountainside near the Hamilton Island airport on September 26, killing Morris and his five tourist passengers.
The dead passengers were New Zealand couple Kevin and Joanne Bowles and their two young children, and American honeymooner Christopher Le Gallo.
Mr Sangston told the court the partial engine failure mid-air, the pilot's steep right-hand turn while trying to return it to safety, and the fact the aircraft stalled during the risky manoeuvre were all contributing factors to the crash.
The investigation was unable to conclude there had been a problem with the engine prior to takeoff, and it was believed that if Morris was aware of such a problem while he was taxiing down the runway, he would have aborted the flight.
Mr Sangston said Morris had to make an immediate decision about what evasive action he would take. He said the pilot knew there were many risk factors involved in ditching a plane in the water. "It's a very invidious situation for this young chap to find himself in," he told Coroner Michael Barnes.
"It was a split-second decision – he's worried about himself, he's worried about his passengers including young children (and he's worried about the plane).
"There was a lot of psychological pressures (on him)."
He said when Morris realised the plane was in trouble, he would have looked to his left and seen an expanse of water and land to his right, and probably chose to turn right to find an appropriate place to recover the aircraft.
That decision was complicated by the fact most of his vision of the land during the turn would have been cut out because of the restricted view from the plane's cockpit at that angle.
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.
In other evidence, the court was told Morris had been out drinking the night before the accident and had turned up late for work.
Former police officer Mark Anderson – who was involved in the initial police response to the crash – told the inquest that police had also found cannabis and a smoking utensil in Morris's parked car after the crash.
Lawyer Martin Burns, for the Morris family, successfully argued that Anderson could not be cross-examined about the drug find because he was not involved in the search.
The court was told the police officer who oversaw that side of the investigation was expected to give evidence in February.
Pilot faced critical choice
Amanda Watt
21dec05
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.
Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigator-in-charge Ian Sangston said Andrew Morris, 27, had to make a split-second decision whether to ditch the plane in water or try to get safely back to land after the engine of his light plane suffered an "intermittent abnormality" seconds after takeoff from the airstrip.
The Piper Cherokee – which was about to make the regular five-minute shuttle to Lindeman Island – crashed into the mountainside near the Hamilton Island airport on September 26, killing Morris and his five tourist passengers.
The dead passengers were New Zealand couple Kevin and Joanne Bowles and their two young children, and American honeymooner Christopher Le Gallo.
Mr Sangston told the court the partial engine failure mid-air, the pilot's steep right-hand turn while trying to return it to safety, and the fact the aircraft stalled during the risky manoeuvre were all contributing factors to the crash.
The investigation was unable to conclude there had been a problem with the engine prior to takeoff, and it was believed that if Morris was aware of such a problem while he was taxiing down the runway, he would have aborted the flight.
Mr Sangston said Morris had to make an immediate decision about what evasive action he would take. He said the pilot knew there were many risk factors involved in ditching a plane in the water. "It's a very invidious situation for this young chap to find himself in," he told Coroner Michael Barnes.
"It was a split-second decision – he's worried about himself, he's worried about his passengers including young children (and he's worried about the plane).
"There was a lot of psychological pressures (on him)."
He said when Morris realised the plane was in trouble, he would have looked to his left and seen an expanse of water and land to his right, and probably chose to turn right to find an appropriate place to recover the aircraft.
That decision was complicated by the fact most of his vision of the land during the turn would have been cut out because of the restricted view from the plane's cockpit at that angle.
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.
In other evidence, the court was told Morris had been out drinking the night before the accident and had turned up late for work.
Former police officer Mark Anderson – who was involved in the initial police response to the crash – told the inquest that police had also found cannabis and a smoking utensil in Morris's parked car after the crash.
Lawyer Martin Burns, for the Morris family, successfully argued that Anderson could not be cross-examined about the drug find because he was not involved in the search.
The court was told the police officer who oversaw that side of the investigation was expected to give evidence in February.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have watched with dispair over the last three years as pilots and the media alike have said terrible things about this accident and this person.
I was a close friend of Andrew's, so obviously react with a lot of emotion, however I just wanted to say that it's great to read that someone has finally recognised this for what it was - an accident. Andrew didn't wake up that day and decide he was going to crash and take with him 5 peoples lives. He was faced with one of those situations that as pilots we hope never happen to us. Knowing him as I did, he would have made the best decision available to him at the time. With 20/20 hindsight it may not have been the best decision, but all that proves is he was human. There is not a pilot who has existed that has ever not made a mistake, luckily for most of us we live to talk about it over some beers that night.
Edited W
His name and reputation have been dragged through the mud with very little regard for the truth. I hope this enquiry can put to end some of this and bring some peace to his family and many friends.
A day doesn't go by when I don't think of Andrew and now hopefully we can remember him for the beautiful person he was.
ibr, I would put a little more thought into exactly what you post here. It does nothing for the gentleman's reputation
Woomera (Eastern States)
I was a close friend of Andrew's, so obviously react with a lot of emotion, however I just wanted to say that it's great to read that someone has finally recognised this for what it was - an accident. Andrew didn't wake up that day and decide he was going to crash and take with him 5 peoples lives. He was faced with one of those situations that as pilots we hope never happen to us. Knowing him as I did, he would have made the best decision available to him at the time. With 20/20 hindsight it may not have been the best decision, but all that proves is he was human. There is not a pilot who has existed that has ever not made a mistake, luckily for most of us we live to talk about it over some beers that night.
Edited W
His name and reputation have been dragged through the mud with very little regard for the truth. I hope this enquiry can put to end some of this and bring some peace to his family and many friends.
A day doesn't go by when I don't think of Andrew and now hopefully we can remember him for the beautiful person he was.
ibr, I would put a little more thought into exactly what you post here. It does nothing for the gentleman's reputation
Woomera (Eastern States)
Last edited by Woomera; 24th Dec 2005 at 21:18.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ibr........I have followed this sagarso also.....and Ilike the rest of this forum give our whole hearted sympathys to those who have lost their lives....Ihave also lost several mates in flying accidents.
Ido not want to get into a pissing and bashing match with you over this sad story...but I,ve got news for you....We as pilots,small or big A/C are held to a very high standard,for obvious reasons,there is no room in this buiness for that type of activity,and your mate did not deserve to hold a pilots priviledge.....these are choices that are made, not forced on anybody and it was his responsibilty to uphold the integrity of this aviation proffession.....the choice was his.....
Ido not want to get into a pissing and bashing match with you over this sad story...but I,ve got news for you....We as pilots,small or big A/C are held to a very high standard,for obvious reasons,there is no room in this buiness for that type of activity,and your mate did not deserve to hold a pilots priviledge.....these are choices that are made, not forced on anybody and it was his responsibilty to uphold the integrity of this aviation proffession.....the choice was his.....
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Malaysia
Age: 38
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My condolences to the families of all whose lives were lost as well. A very depressing read indeed. In the aviation sector, regardless of whether private or commercial has one main emphasis; safety. Mr. Andrew probably did his best to avert the situation but unfortunately, was quite unsuccessful. Having being accused an irresponsible pilot may be extremely unjust for Mr. Andrew. He's an aviator, well worthy of his licence otherwise, he wouldn't be holding onto one, no? However, in my personal opinion, most air crashes are due to compounded errors (both technical and mechanical), and Mr. Andrew happen to be caught in a predicament which was obviously quite invidious. I believe his name should be cleared and that the general public should understand that we pilots do not wish for this as well, and that includes Mr. Andrew as well.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember someone once told me: Before anyone goes off giving a hard time to a pilot who has crashed they should remember that with all their experience, all their training and instructor's advice, they made a decision at the time in a split second. Who's to say anyone else wouldn't have made the same decision?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'm afraid the investigator is thoroughly wrong. Not only were the actions of the pilot incorrect, the fact is that he didn't do "the best he could", or "make the best decision available to him at the time". That would have been to keep the aircraft under control until contact with ground or water was inevitable. He broke the most fundamental disciplines of flying.
He may have been "under stress", but pursuing a career as a pilot is an acknowledgement that you not only understand that there will be moments of severe stress, but also have trained and prepared yourself to the point where you are up to the task.
There is a standard, and if you can't cut it you shouldn't be flying with passengers. Having met that standard is an acknowledgement that you are prepared to answer for your actions if you fail to exercise the care and responsibility expected of you.
It is not an "accident" that this guy chose perform a steep turn, at low altitude, towards high ground. That was a deliberate action, and as the investigator said, was the reason the accident happened.
It is bad enough when friends and colleagues try to sugar-coat the actions of their peers, but when investigators do it, you might as well forget about improving flight safety. The message from this investigator is "it could happen to anyone", which is patently untrue.
Nobody likes it when people die in air accidents, but if we also refuse to call a spade a spade, we are only deluding ourselves, the loved ones of those who died, and the entire pilot community.
He may have been "under stress", but pursuing a career as a pilot is an acknowledgement that you not only understand that there will be moments of severe stress, but also have trained and prepared yourself to the point where you are up to the task.
There is a standard, and if you can't cut it you shouldn't be flying with passengers. Having met that standard is an acknowledgement that you are prepared to answer for your actions if you fail to exercise the care and responsibility expected of you.
It is not an "accident" that this guy chose perform a steep turn, at low altitude, towards high ground. That was a deliberate action, and as the investigator said, was the reason the accident happened.
It is bad enough when friends and colleagues try to sugar-coat the actions of their peers, but when investigators do it, you might as well forget about improving flight safety. The message from this investigator is "it could happen to anyone", which is patently untrue.
Nobody likes it when people die in air accidents, but if we also refuse to call a spade a spade, we are only deluding ourselves, the loved ones of those who died, and the entire pilot community.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NZ
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is often difficult to apply reason under emotive circumstances, but I agree 100% with MOR. I disagree with the investigator that a ditching was as dangerous as the attempted maneuver. There are many statistics that back this up.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: South Of Where ever you are sitting
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is fair to say that there was a number of seconds that no one will ever know waht happened. That is where the investigation is lacking knowledge and it is impossible to ever find these answers.
Another point that seems to not be mentioned is that the American sitting next to Andrew was a pilot.
GC
Another point that seems to not be mentioned is that the American sitting next to Andrew was a pilot.
GC
Turnbacks are always going to be a bone of contention - in some circumstances they work and some (a lot) they don't.
However, it's interesting that the current issue of Flight Safety Aust discusses a ditching accident, and the stats used in the analysis (comparison of 179 ditchings and 216 forced landings) comes up with 97% survivability (ie no fatalaties) for landings v. 88% for ditchings.
Going on that (and yes, stats are of course rubbery) a punt for the land is better; of course, the turnback aspect is the bogey here.
Anyway, RIP to the poor individuals, and may we never have to make the decision for real ourselves.
However, it's interesting that the current issue of Flight Safety Aust discusses a ditching accident, and the stats used in the analysis (comparison of 179 ditchings and 216 forced landings) comes up with 97% survivability (ie no fatalaties) for landings v. 88% for ditchings.
Going on that (and yes, stats are of course rubbery) a punt for the land is better; of course, the turnback aspect is the bogey here.
Anyway, RIP to the poor individuals, and may we never have to make the decision for real ourselves.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That statistic is irrevant to this accident, as he didn't attempt a forced landing - which by definition implies a significant amount of control over the aircrafts flight path. He stalled in whilst attempting a steep turn at extremely low altitude.
As we (should) all know, if you have an EFATO seconds after rotation, you land within 30 degrees of straight ahead.
A turn back is NEVER going to work unless you have at least a few hundred feet to play with, and even then, it's risky - but obviously a justifiable risk if the alternative ahead is more dangerous. However, a controlled ditching in a Cherokee Six is unlikely to be fatal.
I have always been glad that my first instructor demonstrated to me the folly of a turn back with less than 500' AGL on the clock.
I doubt that alcohol or drugs had anything to do with this accident (as the report implied), it was just poor judgement.
As we (should) all know, if you have an EFATO seconds after rotation, you land within 30 degrees of straight ahead.
A turn back is NEVER going to work unless you have at least a few hundred feet to play with, and even then, it's risky - but obviously a justifiable risk if the alternative ahead is more dangerous. However, a controlled ditching in a Cherokee Six is unlikely to be fatal.
I have always been glad that my first instructor demonstrated to me the folly of a turn back with less than 500' AGL on the clock.
I doubt that alcohol or drugs had anything to do with this accident (as the report implied), it was just poor judgement.
Yes MOR, I agree that the 'seconds after takeoff' issue is the telling point; it would be hoped that every pilot has the folly of a turnback in such circumstances drummed into them.
The other, less black-and-white, issue is, to my mind, the critical differences between what we are used to seeing in training and what we might really attempt in the real case, given the fear, pressure and probable disbelief factors.
All very well to say that it's an obvious error of judgement; maybe so, but suffice it to say that some of us would make the right decision on the day, others would not, and there's likely no way to tell which would be which.
Practice and good instruction are great things to have, but this young bloke was there in the hot seat and did what he did.
The other, less black-and-white, issue is, to my mind, the critical differences between what we are used to seeing in training and what we might really attempt in the real case, given the fear, pressure and probable disbelief factors.
All very well to say that it's an obvious error of judgement; maybe so, but suffice it to say that some of us would make the right decision on the day, others would not, and there's likely no way to tell which would be which.
Practice and good instruction are great things to have, but this young bloke was there in the hot seat and did what he did.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, sure, but what he did was WRONG and almost certainly contrary to his training.
Pilots carrying pax for money are expected to exercise some self-discipline and do the things they were trained to do, particularly when the obvious choice isn't fundamentally suicidal.
Some pilots, faced with this situation, choose to place the preservation of their jobs, and possibly a congratulary pat on the back and "well done" from a grateful employer, over the safer but more personally costly choice of losing the aircraft.
I know that when I was a young CPL and was faced with a rough-running engine on a night VFR cross-country, I just wanted to get back to the airport and not be the subject of an accident enquiry. I was well aware that I was on the verge of compromising all the training I had received, and I had to really be firm with myself and prepare for a ditching. Luckily for me, I was high enough and close enough to the airport to get back... but I was ready to ditch (pretty scary at night).
My point is that when you get to the airlines (surely where this guy wanted to get to), it is drummed into you that just saying "Oh sh*t" and reacting is the worst possible thing to do. You absolutely HAVE to be disciplined and you absolutely MUST exercise self-control. It's called professionalism, and should exist at every level of commercial aviation. It is also the minimum standard that a pilot should maintain, and if he can't, there are possibly some issues with both checking and training. It is worth saying also, that this self-discipline should extend to the use of intoxicating substances.
Anyway, my beef isn't with the poor young guy that chose to ignore his training, and paid for it with his life. My real problem is with the investigator who tries to excuse the actions of the pilot, and the guys' friends who try and do the same thing, on the basis that he was a nice guy.
Pilots carrying pax for money are expected to exercise some self-discipline and do the things they were trained to do, particularly when the obvious choice isn't fundamentally suicidal.
Some pilots, faced with this situation, choose to place the preservation of their jobs, and possibly a congratulary pat on the back and "well done" from a grateful employer, over the safer but more personally costly choice of losing the aircraft.
I know that when I was a young CPL and was faced with a rough-running engine on a night VFR cross-country, I just wanted to get back to the airport and not be the subject of an accident enquiry. I was well aware that I was on the verge of compromising all the training I had received, and I had to really be firm with myself and prepare for a ditching. Luckily for me, I was high enough and close enough to the airport to get back... but I was ready to ditch (pretty scary at night).
My point is that when you get to the airlines (surely where this guy wanted to get to), it is drummed into you that just saying "Oh sh*t" and reacting is the worst possible thing to do. You absolutely HAVE to be disciplined and you absolutely MUST exercise self-control. It's called professionalism, and should exist at every level of commercial aviation. It is also the minimum standard that a pilot should maintain, and if he can't, there are possibly some issues with both checking and training. It is worth saying also, that this self-discipline should extend to the use of intoxicating substances.
Anyway, my beef isn't with the poor young guy that chose to ignore his training, and paid for it with his life. My real problem is with the investigator who tries to excuse the actions of the pilot, and the guys' friends who try and do the same thing, on the basis that he was a nice guy.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
I did not know Andrew. I have however (as most of us have) had friends killed in aircraft accidents.
Yes he may have made errors of judgement in one way or another.
What caused this accident?
I'm sure most of you would have heard of the swiss cheese theory.
Let's leave it at that and let this young man RIP.
"Safe flying to all"
I did not know Andrew. I have however (as most of us have) had friends killed in aircraft accidents.
Yes he may have made errors of judgement in one way or another.
What caused this accident?
I'm sure most of you would have heard of the swiss cheese theory.
Let's leave it at that and let this young man RIP.
"Safe flying to all"
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: oz
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be a pretty obvious divide here - pilot's who can recognise that he faced an awful situation and did what he could, and those pilot's who tell themselves after every accident report they read that they would have done things differently. MOR, if that what you need to tell yourself so that you can turn up to work each day and convince yourself you will be coming home again that night, then that's fine - just don't inflict that ''í would always make the right decision in a split second'' crap on the rest of us.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR
Just a quick question, have you ever had a real EFATO and been faced with the problem at similar heights?
I note how quick you are to judge.
How would you face the horror given the same conditions?
I think your perfect world may have some flaws, history has shown that split second decisions can work both ways.
I agree with the teaching practice but the real event should we be faced with it is more often than not unexpected and even the correct course of action can and has proved fatal.
I am sure the pilot if he was still alive and had the chance to reflect on the accident, he would of decided against his actions on the day.
Sadly he is not and the rest of us may learn something from the event. He done what he thought was right at the time, one thing we can all be sure of is, he believed he was going home at the end of his working day, just like the rest of us.
For all on board RIP
Just a quick question, have you ever had a real EFATO and been faced with the problem at similar heights?
I note how quick you are to judge.
How would you face the horror given the same conditions?
I think your perfect world may have some flaws, history has shown that split second decisions can work both ways.
I agree with the teaching practice but the real event should we be faced with it is more often than not unexpected and even the correct course of action can and has proved fatal.
I am sure the pilot if he was still alive and had the chance to reflect on the accident, he would of decided against his actions on the day.
Sadly he is not and the rest of us may learn something from the event. He done what he thought was right at the time, one thing we can all be sure of is, he believed he was going home at the end of his working day, just like the rest of us.
For all on board RIP
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Aus
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mor
I am not sure that your several posts on this matter are made in any serious attempt at discourse on the incident or are just posted in an attempt of some sort of self fulfilment of how good you are, and that you wish to enlighten us all to that premise.
With regards the first, you are not doing such a good job and in regards to the latter, I suggest you are doing an extremely great job.
You not only criticise the PIC in charge of the crash aircraft, but you lambast the investigator who presented the results of his investigation and his considered opinion to the Court.
Since the investigator gave his name, evidence and opinions on oath, (and attended the scene) I shall give him more credence than someone that appears to be just an armchair critic, has investigated the incident via the net, and posted his opinions under nothing more than a pseudonym.
This was a sad incident, but should now be studied at a level of what can happen, not of who we can blame.
In closing may I offer the following quote, (which whilst it may not apply to Mor, should be considered by those that emulate his attitude).............
"Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone" John 8:7
I am not sure that your several posts on this matter are made in any serious attempt at discourse on the incident or are just posted in an attempt of some sort of self fulfilment of how good you are, and that you wish to enlighten us all to that premise.
With regards the first, you are not doing such a good job and in regards to the latter, I suggest you are doing an extremely great job.
You not only criticise the PIC in charge of the crash aircraft, but you lambast the investigator who presented the results of his investigation and his considered opinion to the Court.
Since the investigator gave his name, evidence and opinions on oath, (and attended the scene) I shall give him more credence than someone that appears to be just an armchair critic, has investigated the incident via the net, and posted his opinions under nothing more than a pseudonym.
This was a sad incident, but should now be studied at a level of what can happen, not of who we can blame.
In closing may I offer the following quote, (which whilst it may not apply to Mor, should be considered by those that emulate his attitude).............
"Let He Who is Without Sin Cast the First Stone" John 8:7
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Eastern Oz
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE : I have always been glad that my first instructor demonstrated to me the folly of a turn back with less than 500' AGL on the clock.
MOR
What exactly did that entail. It sounds bloody dangerous to me.
MOR
What exactly did that entail. It sounds bloody dangerous to me.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ibr
Sad that you let your friendship delude you when it comes to the facts.
When I turn up for work, I have plan A, B and C - because in the real commercial world, that is how you operate. We have a set of SOPs and we stick to them. We do 12 hours in the sim every six months to make SURE we know what to do, and how to do it. I know that I can make a mistake, but I also know that if I stick ot the plan, the chances of my not making it home are very, very slim.
2B1ASK1
Yes. Twice in a single and once in a twin that wasn't going anywhere on the second engine (a Piper Apache). I have also experienced several cable breaks when launching gliders by winch - and that calls for reactions a lot quicker than an engine failure.
And there is no "horror" involved if you know what you are doing. 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.
Gnd Power
Leaving aside your dubious summary of my motives, everybody is entitled to read the report and arrive at a conclusion. 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.
If you want to give credence to the different arguments based on who is named and who isn't, you have simply decided to accept the report of the investigator without question, which is at best a little naive.
If you had read what I have written carefully, you would see that I am not so much apportioning blame (the investigator did that), I am criticising the statements of the investigator and his interpretation of the facts.
And if you want to swap out-of-context scriptures, I suggest you read Proverbs 14:25.
dude65
Not dangerous at all. Find a nice, flat piece of scattered cloud at no more than 2000 feet. Aim to hit the top of it. As you pass it, start a climb and after 500 feet, chop the power and try to turn back and hit the cloud. Let me know how you get on. The slightly diminished performance that you would get at 2000 feet is compensated for by the higher speed at the commencement of the climb (if you start from a cruise speed).
Sad that you let your friendship delude you when it comes to the facts.
When I turn up for work, I have plan A, B and C - because in the real commercial world, that is how you operate. We have a set of SOPs and we stick to them. We do 12 hours in the sim every six months to make SURE we know what to do, and how to do it. I know that I can make a mistake, but I also know that if I stick ot the plan, the chances of my not making it home are very, very slim.
2B1ASK1
have you ever had a real EFATO and been faced with the problem at similar heights?
And there is no "horror" involved if you know what you are doing. 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.
Gnd Power
Leaving aside your dubious summary of my motives, everybody is entitled to read the report and arrive at a conclusion. 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.
If you want to give credence to the different arguments based on who is named and who isn't, you have simply decided to accept the report of the investigator without question, which is at best a little naive.
If you had read what I have written carefully, you would see that I am not so much apportioning blame (the investigator did that), I am criticising the statements of the investigator and his interpretation of the facts.
And if you want to swap out-of-context scriptures, I suggest you read Proverbs 14:25.
dude65
Not dangerous at all. Find a nice, flat piece of scattered cloud at no more than 2000 feet. Aim to hit the top of it. As you pass it, start a climb and after 500 feet, chop the power and try to turn back and hit the cloud. Let me know how you get on. The slightly diminished performance that you would get at 2000 feet is compensated for by the higher speed at the commencement of the climb (if you start from a cruise speed).