c152 missing between Hamilton and New Plymouth NZ POB1

[NoseGear]

AutopilotEngage.....

confounding and extaneous variables

? Maybe so, but I cant imagine what they might be, after all, would you turn INTO the high terrain at night in bad wx? If he was over Raglan at 1850, then he didnt leave till probably 1800, its not that far from NE. And if his departure was delayed, thats another point he could have broken the accident chain. He had at least an hour to go, in darkness and into deteriorating wx, and it was very windy (in fact, there was a Tornado just south of NP that night) so along with poor wx, it was probably pretty lumpy too. Add all that up, poor viz, lowering cloud base, rain and turb, at night in a C152....he would have had his hands full. And of course, he had to navigate....Im not privy as to whether he had a GPS or VOR onboard, anybody? Why not just track the coast back to Auckland? Can you tell me where you got your wx info? 2500' and average viz? Going thru an unseen rainshower would drop that markedly, lighty windscreens arent very good with rain on them. Im not trying to bag him personally, but highlight the decisions he made, perhaps offer alternates so that young pilots may learn from this accident, and hopefully not repeat it.

I also agree with Luke on the bagging instructors, it wasnt the intructors who put this guy where he was, his own decision making process did that. Im absolutely certain no instructor would have authorised a flight such as this, regardless of experience, wages or anything else.

[haughtney1]

Nosegear,

I also agree with Luke on the bagging instructors, it wasnt the intructors who put this guy where he was, his own decision making process did that

I think instructors are fair game in respect of being bought to task with the standard of pilot they produce, I also am firmly of the opinion that decision making taught during the very early stages of instruction is vital to that students survival!
If the experience base isn't there...the decision making skills are also lacking...so then how can you teach it if you haven't learn't it yourself?
Its not about bagging instructors, its about bagging the system that at times has the blind teaching the ignorant.

The investigation into this incident will focus on this chaps training history, with particular emphasis on his decision making skills, in that regard, I am confident the instructor(s) who taught this fellow will be taking a cold hard look at themselves and asking the question "did I do all I could to prevent this from happening?"
My opinion is that they will have taught this fellow to the best of their ability, I just have a nagging doubt based on past experience, that something might have been missed in this fellows character.
I was fortunate, my nagging doubt I speak about was very nearly beaten out of me by a well respected B cat who at the time grounded me for 2 months..which taught me a lesson that saved my Bacon 10 years later.

We all go through our lives making decisions, some more benign than others, regretably flying at night in a light, under powered training aircraft, in less than ideal weather has proved to be fatal for this poor guy.

[riseagainst]

From memory the aircraft was not fitted with a Vor.
Flew over the crash site other day, from what we saw looks like the planes clipped the top of a ridge with a wing, rolled over and landed on the other side.

[remoak]

NoseGear

remoak can probably give a good account of the lack of help from C*#nts Against Aviation unlimited, and Id be interested to know in fact.

When I asked them, I was a current check and training captain on the 146 with over 10,000 logged and over 5000 of those jet command, about 2000 hours of airline training. They said I would need to do the following:
-ATPL law exam
-BFR
-Renew C cat
-Renew Multi, multi I/R and multi instructors ratings

To do that, bearing in mind that any aero club or flight school is going to want to milk you for as many hours as they can get, was going to take at least ten hours in a single and another ten hours in a multi. Add all that up, and you end up spending well over five grand as an absolute minimum, probably a lot more, and that is a sum it would probably take 6-12 months to get back from whatever money you could get from instructing.

I pointed out that my JAA arline check and training experience must count for something, but the CAA doesn't agree and will not recognise that experience in mitigation of NZ requirements. So, although on the one hand they bleat on about the lack of experience in the instructor pool, they will do nothing to help alleviate it.

The second obstacle is the aero clubs and flight schools. The young instructors, all of whom are hours-building, tend to get pretty uppity at the idea of some old guy coming in and stealing "their" hours. The clubs and schools, not being keen to piss off their cheap labour force, are reluctant to give the old hands any flying. There are exceptions to that in Auckland, but not down my end of the island.

So basically, the whole culture needs to change if the overall experience level in the instructor pool is ever going to increase.

The stupid thing is that the young instructors who object to the older guys coming in, are turning down a golden opportunity to learn about how the airline world really works, from those who have been there and done that.

Anyway, I'm not holding my breath for any change to either the attitude of the flight schools, or the CAA's "more than my job's worth, Guvnor" way of thinking.

nike

airmanship can be tough to teach.

It is impossible to teach if you have no experience to draw from. At least if you have been there, done that, and scared yourself ****less, you can pass advice with some actual conviction, rather than passing on vague concepts.

AutopilotEngage

Also the weather was not as bad as everyone's making out, yes there was a ****eload of wind out, I had the cloud base around 2500', visibility was average.

Night time and under a cloud deck, even a broken one, is basically IMC. This is particularly true if you are low level and over rough country, where you are unlikely to have a decent horizon or any sensible ground references. If you aren't instrument-rated, you are just asking for it trying that sort of thing.

Also, the second that you become unsure of your position, the automatic reaction should be to climb above MSA and shout for help. Embarrassing (if you have a big ego), but nobody dies.

I think it's our duty as fellow pilots to just as quickly jump to their defence, at least 'til all the facts are known.

Actually it isn't, apart maybe from in GA. In the airline world, the safety culture is built around admitting mistakes and learning from them. The assumption is that the pilot screwed up, unless there was an obvious structural or mechanical failure, and even then the actions of the pilot will be carefully scrutinised to make sure that he or she didn't exacerbate the problem. That is why airline pilots are virtually always suspended from duty following a serious incident or accident, pending an investigation. This approach may seem harsh, but it is one reason why the airline safety culture will always be superior to that found in GA.

Luke SkyToddler

Can all of you please stand up who NEVER made an iffy decision to get airborne when you were a young fella with low hours, and subsequently found themselves in a scary situation wishing they were somewhere else.

Pretty much all of us have done that, it is how you learn. However, the difference between the "good old days" and now, is that then the instructors passed on that experience to their students, or took their students out in bad but manageable weather to show them what it looks like. As others have pointed out, that doesn't happen any more in the "sausage factories", in fact the instructors there have probably never seen any bad weather and are therefore unlikely to appreciate the dangers as much as their older brethren.

This thread is going down the normal road of bagging NZ instructor standards and experience levels and that's just not right here. In fact if the flight was unauthorized as some of you are reporting, then it's got absolutely zero to do with it.

It's got EVERYTHING to do with it. If the guy had a proper appreciation of the risks, he wouldn't be dead. That appreciation, at his experience level, should have come from his instructors. He obviously made bad decisions that he alone is responsible for, but there is the "swiss cheese" effect in play here, and some of those holes are at the instructor level. I agree that no competent instructor would have authorised the trip, but good instructors should inculcate a culture of caution in their students. If this guy had successfully completed his Instructor Rating, I would be concerned about what he would have advised his students with regard to night VFR, weather etc.

NZ has a bloody tricky environment of weather and terrain at the best of times

I'm rather surprised to hear you say that. NZ weather is relatively benign compared to some parts of the world. Forgotten your days in Dundee?

regardless of experience levels it's so so hard sometimes when you're the B cat sitting in the briefing room signing the guy out and trying to mentally determine from a few bits of paper if what this guy is presenting you with is a normal day with potential to be challenging, or whether it's a killer.

Pretty surprised to hear you say that, too. It is the B Cat's JOB to ensure that the trainee doesn't depart if there is any significant weather risk. If he or she can't do that, he or she shouldn't be a B cat in the first place. You always err on the side of caution. You always apply safety tolerances. At the end of the day, if you launch a student and they run into anything that kills them, and that thing was either evident or could be inferred from the "bits of paper", you are at least partly responsible.

[glekichi]

There is a lot of stuff that needs some thought (by the regulators in particular) posted here, but very little has been mentioned regarding night VFR and the way it is taught and regulated.

Whilst I cringe at the thought of it being handled (read: over regulated) the way it is in OZ, the techniques taught in NZ do NOT apply to x-country night VFR.

What is taught in NZ is extremely valuable, but strictly for use in KNOWN AREAS; not blasting off from A to B in the middle of the night, regardless of the weather.

Regulation in OZ is very appropriate when CRUISING IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE and approaching an UNKNOWN AIRFIELD, whilst NZ teaches very well how to fly REAL NIGHT VFR, BY LOOKING OUT THE FECKING WINDOW.

Why the hell you would want to fly from A to B VFR in the middle of the night still boggles me...............

[M14_P]

Three Blader, doesn't it make you weep? Pathetic, what else can one say....

[M14_P]

Talking about airmanship anyone ever heard the following;

"With repetition comes good habits, with good habits comes good airmanship, with good airmanship comes security, and with security comes enjoyment. Then joyful repetition starts mastery."

As a (very) new instructor, coming from a mere 18 months already in the industry, I'd like to think I'd be able to over time become a career instructor (not hour building), as I intend to get another aircraft for personal use, something else aerobatic, with 2 seats to continue teaching in, basic and advanced aerobatics as that has always been my total passion in this game, nothing else even remotely interests me.

With so many negative references to 'hour building' instructors I definately hope to not end up one of those in some kind of lightning hurry to move up in the monkey race.....

[Water Wings]

I was by no means a high time pilot but had built up a bit more experience than your average instructor at the local aero club.

On being keen to return to instructing, most places ignored me while others offered me the same money as a brand new 300 hour 'C' Cat...Hmm......

[Luke SkyToddler]

Points all taken remoak. You're right of course in that we should always err on the side of caution, and I can't think of any scenario in a million years where any instructor with a brain would authorize a night VFR XC over the King Country.

And yet completely avoidable accidents keep on happening, even when a good conscientious instructor has applied the nth degree of safety precaution. So what goes wrong?

I know there's three or four of us on the thread who were lucky enough to train under Gordon Vette in the early '90s, and remember what a tight ship he ran, his whole being was devoted to passing on his immense airmanship to his instructors and students ... and yet on his watch, a CPL student killed himself and an innocent passenger in beautiful weather in one of the most immensely stupid acts in the history of kiwi GA. Bad things can happen even to good instructors.

What I should have maybe said was, that the instructor uses his own airmanship to assess the student's solo ability and signs them out on an exercise suitable for their level of ability. The student places their trust in the instructor not to send them into anything dangerous, but it's a two way street, we also place our trust in the student to use what skill and judgment they have when they're out there and not do anything they're not authorized or trained for or that they know might lead them into trouble.

Every single flight has the potential for tragedy if that trust isn't taken seriously by both parties. I would suggest unless facts prove otherwise, that the breach of trust in this case occurred at the student rather than the instructor end of the bargain.

[slackie]

Aviation is cruel and unforgiving.

I believe there are 4 types of pilots...
1. those that won't scare themselves sh!tless because they have learned from someone else's mistakes/experience (unfortunately this group is probably relatively small),
2. those that have scared themselves sh!tless and learn from the experience,
3. those that have yet to scare themelves sh!tless and will learn from the experience,
4. lastly those that have yet to scare themselves sh!tless and won't survive to learn from the experience.

I fall into the second category.

There but for the grace of God.....(and I'm not at all religious!)

RIP

PS...I guess unfortunately there's another group...those that are just idiots and won't learn no matter what happens!!
PPS...I am in no way suggesting that the pilot in this case fell into any particular category...that is up to the investigator to determine.

[Massey058]

PPRuNe can be quite depressing at times and I'm not suggesting that this is an uplifting topic by a long shot but here we actually have a decent discussion with all sorts of experience levels chipping in.

As I said earlier in the peace I knew the pilot, I also know his instructors from his ab-initio training (some of whom I have flown with). Some of the comments made on here are certainly a bit rough but I understand where people are coming from.

Like all accidents there will no doubt be a number of factors at play in this one but it does seem like it all comes down to the go/no-go decision process.

On instructors and not just at the school we both trained at, there will always be 'lifers' (that seems like a derogatory term but most certainly is not) and 'hour-builders'. These two tags are largely un-important as it comes down to the individual and their own merits. The pilot concerned flew with both types of instructors from 'green' c-cat to experienced a-cat with outside experience. All of which I would describe as consciencious operators at a minimum.

I don't think the 'sausage factory' lack of experience in right of operating conditions holds water either. I can't speak to his particular training in every aspect but as a general rule you get to experience varying conditions, sometimes you even have to turn-around when it all turns to custard (dual and/or solo).

This brings me to get-there-itis, I think one of the most dangerous thought processes that can run through a pilots mind. I don't believe its something that gets neglected in training (as above) and I certainly remember being lectured about this subject a lot. Its even a flight test item.

Pilots are generally mission-based, we fly from here to there, simple. But this creates problems because when you add in grey-areas (black and white to some, but not others at times) there can be a pull to push on through. Despite all the airmanship/professionalism briefings and AvKiwi seminars people still die. I don't think it means these are pointless exercises, quite the reverse but keep trying we must.

Night VFR, CAA and oversight and GA awards etc. are all side issues in this case I think, but very worthy of discussion.

[Staticport]

Aviation is cruel and unforgiving.

I believe there are 4 types of pilots...
1. those that won't scare themselves sh!tless because they have learned from someone else's mistakes/experience (unfortunately this group is probably relatively small),
2. those that have scared themselves sh!tless and learn from the experience,
3. those that have yet to scare themelves sh!tless and will learn from the experience,
4. lastly those that have yet to scare themselves sh!tless and won't survive to learn from the experience.

I would say most fall under category 2

[nike]

However, the difference between the "good old days" and now, is that then the instructors passed on that experience to their students, or took their students out in bad but manageable weather to show them what it looks like. As others have pointed out, that doesn't happen any more in the "sausage factories", in fact the instructors there have probably never seen any bad weather and are therefore unlikely to appreciate the dangers as much as their older brethren.

Is this statement an accurate representation of the NZ training scene in 2009?

[kiwi chick]

Remoak, you speak some very wise words, I'll be sure to always read your posts in the future.

Threeblader - I apologise, that probably didn't sound as I intended it to. I wondered if you were a "new pilot" and had been taught something about the 406 beacon that I didn't know. In the military we're taught about the beacons with the GPS high-accuracy and I didn't realise there were other that weren't so accurate.

I totally concur with Hughesy (and a couple of others) who recommend reading the accident reports. I read every single one of them and I'm sure as ****e it's saved my bacon on more than one occassion.

[AutopilotEngage]

Night time and under a cloud deck, even a broken one, is basically IMC. This is particularly true if you are low level and over rough country, where you are unlikely to have a decent horizon or any sensible ground references. If you aren't instrument-rated, you are just asking for it trying that sort of thing.

Also, the second that you become unsure of your position, the automatic reaction should be to climb above MSA and shout for help. Embarrassing (if you have a big ego), but nobody dies.

I'm 100% with you.


Nosegear,

If he was over Raglan at 1850, then he didnt leave till probably 1800, its not that far from NE

Given.

Can you tell me where you got your wx info? 2500' and average viz?

Left Raglan around 5.30pm driving to Hamilton that night,


It was a stupid decision to leave I just want there to be other reasons and factors involved as I knew him and was present when he made some pretty smart decisions regarding wx and flying. Don't know what he was thinking that night. Too sad really .

[remoak]

Luke S-T

So what goes wrong?

It's basically an age-old story of overconfidence and perceived invulnerability.

Any newly minted CPL, despite probably having been told many times that it is simply a licence to learn, will feel pretty good about themselves and will often think they are fully equipped to get away with pretty much anything. In this case, I'm sure the guy was probably thinking that he could get out of his difficulties right up until he hit the ridge. The problem is, that without a decent level of experience, he probably both over-estimated his ability to escape the situation, and under-estimated just how serious his situation was.

Speaking from my own experience (both GA and airline), there often comes a point where you have been working increasingly hard to resolve a problem, and you suddenly realise that, oh ****, I'm in trouble here! At that point, the brain either stops working, your grip on the controls increases, and you essentially freeze up, or your brain yells "DO SOMETHING!!!' and you execute an escape manoeuver (ie a climb to MSA, turn towards the sea, etc). The second option only works if you have thought it through beforehand and made a plan, of course.

So back to your question. It happens because pilots get over-confident and get into trouble too quickly to get out of it again, or because the don't recognise their situation as being dangerous in the first place, or because they suddenly realise that they are in trouble and they panic.

It also happens if their instructors have not prepared/warned/monitored them properly to ensure that they will recognise trouble when they see it. However, that is only ever a secondary reason, the pilot is always in charge of his or her own destiny and has to live or die with his or her decisions.

I taught a lot of students, back when the CAA would let me, and some of them were just accidents waiting to happen. Way over-confident, typical extreme-sports types who thought that risk taking was a fun thing to do, and who never really considered the consequences of anything they did. Getting them to interpret weather or NOTAMs was always a major chore, and they had little appreciation of what weather was really like... but they passed their exams, the ASL FTO passed them, so they ended up as C cats. I pitied their students and tried to "help", but most students liked the idea of a gung-ho instructor, so it was a waste of time.

During my period instructing, I had fellow instructors who:

- thought it was OK to land on a country road and fill up with pump gas when they mis-managed their fuel plan;
- decided to formate on me without bothering to tell me first;
-cut in front of me when I was on short finals, while laughing about it over the radio;
- tried to impress female students by doing chandelles in the training area, lost it, ended up in a spin and barely recovered;
-came back from Omaka one crappy day at 200';
-intentionally entered cloud, iced up, lost all forward vis and very nearly crashed into a ridge;
- and a CFI who got a job flying in PNG anf flew into a cliff while in cloud a few months later.

I doubt that much has changed in the intervening years, particularly as the CAA have little interest in actual regulation.

There are some pretty damning YouTube videos featuring NZ instructors if you look around.

Compare that to the airline world... when I check out a pilot, either on a line check or in the sim, he or she is required to operate to SOPs. If they deviate for any reason, they have to explain why. Unless the explanation is very good, they fail. If they do not fly the correct speeds, they generally fail. If they at any time demonstrate a "cowboy" attitude, they fail. You see the difference? We simply do not allow the attitudes that you find in GA. That is why the airlines (and the military) will always be safer than GA. The CAA don't help, as they take an essentially "hands off" attitude to regulation (whilst wringing their hands over the experience levels amongst instructors).

It's all about attitude, you either have a professional one or you don't. That includes the CAA, who don't understand the word "professional".

Oh, andf Night VFR is the stupidist thing I have ever heard of. If you want to fly at night, go get an instrument rating. Anything else is dicing with death.

I agree with the rest of your post, BTW.

"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous, but to a degree even greater than the sea is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity, or neglect." -Cap. A.G. Lamplaugh, British Aviation Insurance Corp., ~1930

[bestpilotindaworld]

There are two types of instructors;

1) The ones that have had a job FLYING the plane themselfs and have quite a threw hours and have learned what the aeroplane can do and what bad wx is. And normally leaving it upto the student until they really F&%K UP they take over and still talk you threw it.

2) The newbe C-Cat straight out of there course with 300 hours that think they are going to be airline pilots tomorrow. Trying to teach poor students how to do things but they havent put it into practice themselfs and always having there hands under the controls or there F&%Kin feet on the pedals. Always playing with things and saying "I've got control" and doing a couple of medium turns and then saying "You have control" or its a bit windy and the last time they did a x-wind landing was when they watch there instructor do it for them or talking on the the F&%kin radio

Having had myself nearly 30 instructors in 12 years I have seen them all. I was lucky when I did my PPL that most of the instructors were type 1's.

I have seen quite a few people go flew the local aero club in my time and the ones that are trained by type 1 turn out great pilots, the ones that get a bit of both normally turn out alright but the ones that are trained just type 2 are F&%ked and are just waiting to be in Vector!

[AutopilotEngage]

- thought it was OK to land on a country road and fill up with pump gas when they mis-managed their fuel plan;

I'm in shock, that's absolutely insane.

[remoak]

I'm in shock, that's absolutely insane.

Yep, and that guy was the CFI of a Wellington region flight school for a year or three.

I had an instructor at a certain establishment in the Capital, who thought it was fine to go off on a club trip, get utterly bent at a pub in Queenstown until 3am, and then get airborne at 7am and head off to Alexandria via the valleys (as the tops were in cloud).

I also had an instructor in Wellington who took a substantial amount of money off me to do my multi instrument. We went up to RO to pick up the Seneca we were going to use... turned out he had never flown one, so the club up there gave him a quick "rating" with me in the back. The guy consistently over-boosted the engines (he had never flown turbocharged pistons before), but the club let him take the aircraft anyway. Got halfway through the rating, when the place he was doing my rating at enquired as to whose AOC he was using (as theirs didn't cover multi training). He told them he was using his employer's AOC (a well-known Wellington charter operator). He told his employer that he was using the flight school's AOC. Eventually the flight school asked the Charter company... and that was the end of my multi instrument...

[kiwi chick]

Bestpilotindaworld:

I have to disagree just a little here:

There are two types of instructors;

I was a newbie C-Cat straight off course but I had absolutely no doubt whatsoever that I knew squat. I was never destined for airlines - it didn't interest me - so hours were totally irrelevant to me.

On ****ty days, I would be the one ringing the customer to explain that conditions weren't the greatest, and for best "hands-on" value for money, it would be prudent to reschedule for a better day. There's not point in them paying for me to fly.

I was always faced with shocked looks from the "Type 2" instructors who didn't give a toss that their student was not going to touch the controls - it was another 0.6 in their logbook, after all ...

So, whilst my experience of 600 hours is a mere drop in the hat compared to many others, there are some of us that still have the right attitude.

The old "if you can't beat 'em, join e'm" doesn't wash with me, so I got out. I gave up a good job (as a photography pilot) because I just was not comfortable - or happy - sharing the same airspace with the above-mentioned pilots.