Survey aircraft crash, WA
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MyNameIsIs,
I do not recall the registration of the aircraft, but heard a similar story to you regarding the cause therefore probably the same incident.
Murray Cod/slow n low,
What you say is indeed correct to a certian point. The severity and risk are inputted and if the resulting risk factor is not in the acceptable range, add some controls and bring it to a number that is. The trouble is that there is no quantitative data to back up the effectiveness of the controls put in place and the resultant risk factor.
Unfortunately, with the survey companies, upper management tend to have no aviation experience and it is left to the poor Chief Pilot and the pilot group to fight a battle where they are outside their weight division as they are typically going up against people higher the organisation then they are.
There are some companies that do it better then others.
I do not recall the registration of the aircraft, but heard a similar story to you regarding the cause therefore probably the same incident.
Murray Cod/slow n low,
What you say is indeed correct to a certian point. The severity and risk are inputted and if the resulting risk factor is not in the acceptable range, add some controls and bring it to a number that is. The trouble is that there is no quantitative data to back up the effectiveness of the controls put in place and the resultant risk factor.
Unfortunately, with the survey companies, upper management tend to have no aviation experience and it is left to the poor Chief Pilot and the pilot group to fight a battle where they are outside their weight division as they are typically going up against people higher the organisation then they are.
There are some companies that do it better then others.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: out there
Age: 43
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, with the survey companies, upper management tend to have no aviation experience and it is left to the poor Chief Pilot and the pilot group
And I think you will find it's not just survey companies, or even GA, where the management group has no aviation experience.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tjuntjuntjarra
Age: 54
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is all very well and good, but Surveying is a Dangeous Game, we all accept that, and live with it. Ag planes only have one engine, some piston. They fly in some far more inhospitable country than we do, especially in the mountainous areas.
I go out there in the morning knowing that I have plane with an engine on it that runs well, and has had all the money spent on it that it needs to keep it running as best as can humanly be done. As UTW's pilot found, sometimes thats not enough, but you live with it. He survived, others dont, thats just the way the cookie crumbles im afraid. I imagine they wouldnt pay us 90 grand a year to fly a 210/206 if it was perfectly safe and easy as pie. As far as the water thing goes, I would far rather fly out at sea (with a lifejacket on and a liferaft on board of course) than fly over 50 foot tall trees and in mountains with few escape routes.
I go out there in the morning knowing that I have plane with an engine on it that runs well, and has had all the money spent on it that it needs to keep it running as best as can humanly be done. As UTW's pilot found, sometimes thats not enough, but you live with it. He survived, others dont, thats just the way the cookie crumbles im afraid. I imagine they wouldnt pay us 90 grand a year to fly a 210/206 if it was perfectly safe and easy as pie. As far as the water thing goes, I would far rather fly out at sea (with a lifejacket on and a liferaft on board of course) than fly over 50 foot tall trees and in mountains with few escape routes.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The air up there,
My reference to the Chief Pilot and the pilot group having to battle with management is not in respect to compliance with the Regulations or Operations Manual requirements. In my experience this is typically an easy argument to win.
It is assessing the risk a particular project presents. I am assuming that the operations that were conducted offshore complied with the requirements of CAO 20.11 in the fact that life-jackets were worn and a life-raft carried. But that does not necessarily make the operation safe. It all comes down to acceptable risk. This is typically a very subjective matter and requires very good debating/negotiating/argumentative skills, relevant statistics (very hard to come by within the low level environment with any decent population size to be meaningful depending on the argument being discussed) and unity within the pilot group amongst others.
I have witnessed several occasions where management will ask other pilots within the company about their willingness to conduct a survey that others have knocked back due to that individuals level of acceptable risk. When other companies perform a survey in aircraft that a Chief Pilot has deemed an unacceptable risk for the given conditions there is the potential for management to apply pressure on that particular Chief Pilot to alter their perception of acceptable risk. That pressure is intensified when management are aware that pilots within the group are agreeable to conduct the operation.
Not arguing that it is only present in survey operations. The geographical, terrain, vegetation and climatic variations that survey operations are conducted in make it very hard to have well defined policies and procedures in place to cover every scenario.
Aileron 69,
Agreed, survey does present additional/different hazards not experienced in other types of flying, but the flying does not necessarily have to be all that much more dangerous then experienced in other aviation activities. It all comes down to the companies’ level of acceptable risk and their willingness to adopt sensible and meaningful control measures. Your comparison with agricultural flying although closely assimilates with that of survey flying still has significant differences that should be noted.
Your average survey aircraft is typically not built to the same crashworthiness standards as a lot of your agricultural aircraft are. Stall speeds are typically slower then those of survey aircraft. Agricultural flying is flown over a smaller area then a lot of survey areas therefore the retention of obstacle location, escape paths etc. is generally better and meteorological conditions do not change significantly throughout an agricultural area. Although agricultural can be flown over some difficult terrain in general vegetation is not such an issue as some survey areas.
I will agree on one point, I would prefer to fly survey offshore (appropriately equipped and a lot more then the regulations mandate) then 50 foot trees in a single piston but I do not even allow the company to put me in a position to have to make that decision.
My reference to the Chief Pilot and the pilot group having to battle with management is not in respect to compliance with the Regulations or Operations Manual requirements. In my experience this is typically an easy argument to win.
It is assessing the risk a particular project presents. I am assuming that the operations that were conducted offshore complied with the requirements of CAO 20.11 in the fact that life-jackets were worn and a life-raft carried. But that does not necessarily make the operation safe. It all comes down to acceptable risk. This is typically a very subjective matter and requires very good debating/negotiating/argumentative skills, relevant statistics (very hard to come by within the low level environment with any decent population size to be meaningful depending on the argument being discussed) and unity within the pilot group amongst others.
I have witnessed several occasions where management will ask other pilots within the company about their willingness to conduct a survey that others have knocked back due to that individuals level of acceptable risk. When other companies perform a survey in aircraft that a Chief Pilot has deemed an unacceptable risk for the given conditions there is the potential for management to apply pressure on that particular Chief Pilot to alter their perception of acceptable risk. That pressure is intensified when management are aware that pilots within the group are agreeable to conduct the operation.
Not arguing that it is only present in survey operations. The geographical, terrain, vegetation and climatic variations that survey operations are conducted in make it very hard to have well defined policies and procedures in place to cover every scenario.
Aileron 69,
Agreed, survey does present additional/different hazards not experienced in other types of flying, but the flying does not necessarily have to be all that much more dangerous then experienced in other aviation activities. It all comes down to the companies’ level of acceptable risk and their willingness to adopt sensible and meaningful control measures. Your comparison with agricultural flying although closely assimilates with that of survey flying still has significant differences that should be noted.
Your average survey aircraft is typically not built to the same crashworthiness standards as a lot of your agricultural aircraft are. Stall speeds are typically slower then those of survey aircraft. Agricultural flying is flown over a smaller area then a lot of survey areas therefore the retention of obstacle location, escape paths etc. is generally better and meteorological conditions do not change significantly throughout an agricultural area. Although agricultural can be flown over some difficult terrain in general vegetation is not such an issue as some survey areas.
I will agree on one point, I would prefer to fly survey offshore (appropriately equipped and a lot more then the regulations mandate) then 50 foot trees in a single piston but I do not even allow the company to put me in a position to have to make that decision.
Last edited by Gabilian; 22nd Dec 2009 at 13:35. Reason: Additional information
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: NSW
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Drowning is meant to be euphoric after your lungs have filled with water and there is less chance of a fire in the ocean .
Unfortunately a lot of survey aircraft have extended periods of service in remote locations and probably don’t get the deep attention they deserve. Considering some 210/206 survey aircraft I have seen are pushing 20,000 hours they need some extra looking after.
Aileron 69,
I go out there in the morning knowing that I have plane with an engine on it that runs well, and has had all the money spent on it that it needs to keep it running as best as can humanly be done.
I go out there in the morning knowing that I have plane with an engine on it that runs well, and has had all the money spent on it that it needs to keep it running as best as can humanly be done.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe survey flying is as dangerous as you , or your company , want to make it.
Blasting off in a light twin into a wall of Darwin black clouds on a "must do "charter sounds a lot worse or at FL 200 in a 404 with a "problem".
With a well maintained shrike (used to be), a chief pilot with some kahuna's ( the good ones leave) and lots of experience (most the experienced people left or were sacked), I consider it safe.
I'm not convinced that 210's are safe , isn't there a turbulence penertration speed issue to prevent the wings clapping hands?
Gabilian - with regard to little or no stats
There's been a lot of accident over the years ( a lot just recently) and some important lessons esp regarding flying the hills , for survey crews but no publications , better ask IAGSA that one.
Better stick your feathers in your ears frigatebird , sounds like Lucerne is just getting wound up.
MC
Blasting off in a light twin into a wall of Darwin black clouds on a "must do "charter sounds a lot worse or at FL 200 in a 404 with a "problem".
With a well maintained shrike (used to be), a chief pilot with some kahuna's ( the good ones leave) and lots of experience (most the experienced people left or were sacked), I consider it safe.
I'm not convinced that 210's are safe , isn't there a turbulence penertration speed issue to prevent the wings clapping hands?
Gabilian - with regard to little or no stats
There's been a lot of accident over the years ( a lot just recently) and some important lessons esp regarding flying the hills , for survey crews but no publications , better ask IAGSA that one.
Better stick your feathers in your ears frigatebird , sounds like Lucerne is just getting wound up.
MC
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you worry about me, Cod. The scales fell from my eyes about SOME types in this industry a loooong time ago.. It's just the crudity of expression that gets typed here sometimes, and the English spelling, that diminishes the authors passion and message somewhat, - as I see it.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tjuntjuntjarra
Age: 54
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not convinced that 210's are safe , isn't there a turbulence penertration speed issue to prevent the wings clapping hands?
If only we could all have PACs (with better seats) to survey in....dreams are free
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the wing attach points on the spars had a habit of working the rivets. I saw a few from a survey company being done a while back. scared the hell out of me. I haven't flown a 210 without breaking into a sweat since.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Left of reality.
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
90,000 grand a year.?
My lifetime acheivers award at Coles and Centerlink didn,t mention that.?
Just along hard road.
Yes it,s dangerous and perhaps the glamour of piston engine aircraft isn,t for the bus drivers, posers, or family man.
But love the challenge and satisfaction of real flying.
Regards
M
Well said Gabalian. Thanks
My lifetime acheivers award at Coles and Centerlink didn,t mention that.?
Just along hard road.
Yes it,s dangerous and perhaps the glamour of piston engine aircraft isn,t for the bus drivers, posers, or family man.
But love the challenge and satisfaction of real flying.
Regards
M
Well said Gabalian. Thanks
Last edited by multime; 25th Dec 2009 at 07:57. Reason: Addition
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Murray Cod,
IAGSA statistics in IAGSA own words are “woefully out of date”. According to their website:
• Operations and Safety Reviews (basically hours flown and accident/incident statistics according to a/c type i.e. single piston, multi piston etc): last published 2004, apparently statistics have not been collected since.
• Accident reports: last one published is August 2006
• Incident reports: last one published 2002
None of these cover the recent fatal accident in Australia or the recent ones overseas where I believe a lot of lessons could be learnt. Unfortunately what information you get through rumour or indeed reliable second hand information I think you would agree does not allow anyone to take away reliable and meaningful information to enhance the safety of the industry.
With a recent appointment of a new COO and talk of a Perth chapter hopefully thing can improve. You can only hope.
IHMO, IAGSA needs alot of work to get it where it should be.
IAGSA statistics in IAGSA own words are “woefully out of date”. According to their website:
• Operations and Safety Reviews (basically hours flown and accident/incident statistics according to a/c type i.e. single piston, multi piston etc): last published 2004, apparently statistics have not been collected since.
• Accident reports: last one published is August 2006
• Incident reports: last one published 2002
None of these cover the recent fatal accident in Australia or the recent ones overseas where I believe a lot of lessons could be learnt. Unfortunately what information you get through rumour or indeed reliable second hand information I think you would agree does not allow anyone to take away reliable and meaningful information to enhance the safety of the industry.
With a recent appointment of a new COO and talk of a Perth chapter hopefully thing can improve. You can only hope.
IHMO, IAGSA needs alot of work to get it where it should be.
Slight Drift.... and from so long ago...
'Wiz' ya wudda just l u v e d 'KWW' mentioned eons ago....
The windscreen was full of internal cracks - and used to 'creak' horribly on descent -
so much so that one intrepid fella who, unfortunately is no longer with us - wrote in the 'Gripe Book' - not M/R mind you -
"Windscreen creaks on descent - frightens passengers - F#*KING TERRIFIES PILOT".
Had at least one new windscreen while I was around.
True Story.
'Wiz' ya wudda just l u v e d 'KWW' mentioned eons ago....
The windscreen was full of internal cracks - and used to 'creak' horribly on descent -
so much so that one intrepid fella who, unfortunately is no longer with us - wrote in the 'Gripe Book' - not M/R mind you -
"Windscreen creaks on descent - frightens passengers - F#*KING TERRIFIES PILOT".
Had at least one new windscreen while I was around.
True Story.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: global gypsie
Age: 52
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hats off to you gentlemen. It was a great day when KP checked me out in the shrike at broken hill many moons ago. It saddens me the race to the bottom has spread so wide. Given the great advances in engine-airframe reliability, yet still the whine of affordable safety / profitability drones out the argument of truth. How many billions of barrels of oil, kimberlites' of diamonds etc are worth more survey widows?
