Aircraft down in Canley Vale
david - firstly I think most here would agree with the fact that as hard and horrible this accident is that it sounds as if you provided him with a high level of training, accidents do happen and I don't think it helps anyone beating yourself up about what more you could have done.
Andrew seems to have had an excellent reputation as both a top bloke, and a fantastic pilot, and I don't think anyone will ever take that away. I think more to the point and 'spirit' of these threads is for everyone to try to understand what happened, and IF mistakes were made so that others can learn and put these lessons away in their toolkit so that if a similar situation happens they can perhaps produce a different outcome.
We may be pilots, but firstly we are HUMAN, and sadly humans do (and i'm NOT saying he did) make mistakes. There are literally hundreds of highly skilled pilots that are no longer with us, that sadly in the heat of the moment made mistakes, does that make them bad people not worthy of our sadness of their loss - hell no - but lets not let their ultimate sacrafice amount to nothing. I know a few of them no longer with us and I know them well enough that if you could talk to them now they would be saying 'why did I do that, I should have done XXX', hindsight is an amazing thing, it can't help those involved but it MAY help others avoid it after learning from it. Learn from the mistakes from others, because you will never live long enough to make them all yourself ! Isn't that the purpose of accidents investigations ?
Something no one else has mentioned is that there is no shame in talking to professionals about grief in these situations, it doesn't make you less of a man(or woman) to talk to someone, it's never easy to cope with the loss of a family member or close friend, there is no SOP for grief, some people deal with it better than others.
Andrew seems to have had an excellent reputation as both a top bloke, and a fantastic pilot, and I don't think anyone will ever take that away. I think more to the point and 'spirit' of these threads is for everyone to try to understand what happened, and IF mistakes were made so that others can learn and put these lessons away in their toolkit so that if a similar situation happens they can perhaps produce a different outcome.
We may be pilots, but firstly we are HUMAN, and sadly humans do (and i'm NOT saying he did) make mistakes. There are literally hundreds of highly skilled pilots that are no longer with us, that sadly in the heat of the moment made mistakes, does that make them bad people not worthy of our sadness of their loss - hell no - but lets not let their ultimate sacrafice amount to nothing. I know a few of them no longer with us and I know them well enough that if you could talk to them now they would be saying 'why did I do that, I should have done XXX', hindsight is an amazing thing, it can't help those involved but it MAY help others avoid it after learning from it. Learn from the mistakes from others, because you will never live long enough to make them all yourself ! Isn't that the purpose of accidents investigations ?
Something no one else has mentioned is that there is no shame in talking to professionals about grief in these situations, it doesn't make you less of a man(or woman) to talk to someone, it's never easy to cope with the loss of a family member or close friend, there is no SOP for grief, some people deal with it better than others.
This thread is a bit like watching a train wreck. Its horrible, but I can't look away.
I'm guessing that guys who fly twins have a "there but for the grace of god..." shudder going down their spines. I think we want to know what happened because we're all secretly wondering if we could have done any better.
It seems to me that the guys who fly singles just don't quite understand what it would be like and we're seeing all the old wives tales about twins being trotted out. I think that flying a twin with an engine shut down can never be understood until you've done it. No amount of reading or hangar flying will help.
Its worth the reminder that the Whyalla accident had the pilot crucified for piloting error for some time before the truth about mechanical problems came out.
I'm prepared to assume as a starting point that the pilot was competent and intelligent. He had an issue at good altitude that should have been straightforward to deal with. At that height, I suspect I would have elected to go to home base where you know the area well and there are friendly LAME's etc. He would have known all the landmarks so navigating would have been one less thing to think about. As has been pointed out, climb performance on a single engine is irrelevant because what he really needed was a moderate descent rate. He probably only needed 55% - 65% power on the remaining engine to make Bankstown.
For the Mayday pedants, in my view, the main reason the call is required is to get the attention of ATC. In this case he clearly already had ATC's full attention. There has been extensive discussion of this subject on another pprune thread regarding the recent JFK emergency incident. In many countries (notably the US) there is no requirement to make a formal mayday call to declare an emergency. In this incident, the point at which the line was crossed to declare an emergency, it seems to me that ATC were already handling it as such, so it was essentially redundant. The radio call that would have changed the outcome of this flight does not exist.
It looks like something else has transpired after the pilot shut down an engine to turn this from a difficult situation to a full blown emergency. I'm guessing that by the time this manifested itself and the poor guy processed the new information that he had rapidly diminishing options.
Something very unusual has happened to cause loss of power to both engines. Too much air in the tanks or fueling with JetA1 are the common reasons that we jump to. Both will be quickly determined by the ATSB. JetA1 has an sg of about 0.8 and Avgas about .72, so its heavier. But Avgas & JetA do dissolve quickly, except on the other hand fuel does not mix well in tanks. It tends to stratify. In-ground tanks (eg service stations) do not mix different fuel octane ratings well for example. How well it mixes will be determined by the tank plumbing. If its like other Pipers with hoses interlinking tanks, it might take a while to mix enough to upset the engines. Spark ignition engines will tolerate a level of Jet A / Diesel / Kero. The old side valve low compression car engines (ie Ford Prefect) would run on kero happily once they were hot. Its all too complex to speculate.
At the end of the day, I know I would have done better - except when I'm alone when I worry if I would have done as well.
I've had an engine failure on takeoff in a single and a rough running engine in a single at altitude at night returning to Melbourne. I now mainly fly twins and I'm not prepared to judge the pilot. I really want the ATSB to do a good job of investigating this accident quickly so I can see if there are lessons. In the meantime I just hope I don't suffer the same circumstances.
I'm guessing that guys who fly twins have a "there but for the grace of god..." shudder going down their spines. I think we want to know what happened because we're all secretly wondering if we could have done any better.
It seems to me that the guys who fly singles just don't quite understand what it would be like and we're seeing all the old wives tales about twins being trotted out. I think that flying a twin with an engine shut down can never be understood until you've done it. No amount of reading or hangar flying will help.
Its worth the reminder that the Whyalla accident had the pilot crucified for piloting error for some time before the truth about mechanical problems came out.
I'm prepared to assume as a starting point that the pilot was competent and intelligent. He had an issue at good altitude that should have been straightforward to deal with. At that height, I suspect I would have elected to go to home base where you know the area well and there are friendly LAME's etc. He would have known all the landmarks so navigating would have been one less thing to think about. As has been pointed out, climb performance on a single engine is irrelevant because what he really needed was a moderate descent rate. He probably only needed 55% - 65% power on the remaining engine to make Bankstown.
For the Mayday pedants, in my view, the main reason the call is required is to get the attention of ATC. In this case he clearly already had ATC's full attention. There has been extensive discussion of this subject on another pprune thread regarding the recent JFK emergency incident. In many countries (notably the US) there is no requirement to make a formal mayday call to declare an emergency. In this incident, the point at which the line was crossed to declare an emergency, it seems to me that ATC were already handling it as such, so it was essentially redundant. The radio call that would have changed the outcome of this flight does not exist.
It looks like something else has transpired after the pilot shut down an engine to turn this from a difficult situation to a full blown emergency. I'm guessing that by the time this manifested itself and the poor guy processed the new information that he had rapidly diminishing options.
Something very unusual has happened to cause loss of power to both engines. Too much air in the tanks or fueling with JetA1 are the common reasons that we jump to. Both will be quickly determined by the ATSB. JetA1 has an sg of about 0.8 and Avgas about .72, so its heavier. But Avgas & JetA do dissolve quickly, except on the other hand fuel does not mix well in tanks. It tends to stratify. In-ground tanks (eg service stations) do not mix different fuel octane ratings well for example. How well it mixes will be determined by the tank plumbing. If its like other Pipers with hoses interlinking tanks, it might take a while to mix enough to upset the engines. Spark ignition engines will tolerate a level of Jet A / Diesel / Kero. The old side valve low compression car engines (ie Ford Prefect) would run on kero happily once they were hot. Its all too complex to speculate.
At the end of the day, I know I would have done better - except when I'm alone when I worry if I would have done as well.
I've had an engine failure on takeoff in a single and a rough running engine in a single at altitude at night returning to Melbourne. I now mainly fly twins and I'm not prepared to judge the pilot. I really want the ATSB to do a good job of investigating this accident quickly so I can see if there are lessons. In the meantime I just hope I don't suffer the same circumstances.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
GADRIVER
What do you mean?
Mr James deserved a lot of stick, Andrew Wilson does not. Mr James created his dilema one way or another, and then could have done a whole heap of things better to minimise the risks. Mr Wilson it would seem was pretty much under control and did not make a bunch of really dumb decissions. he did make some poor ones as it turns out by not taking YSRI.
Mr James and his pax are alive. Mr Wilson and his pax are dead.
Talk about an injustice, how unfair is that. And don't turn that around to read the folk at Norfolk should have died either, you know thats not what I mean.
So....in summary there is no comparrison, Mr James deserved all the stick he got.
What do you mean?
Not as vicious as the crud Dom James (Norfolk Island ditching) had to put up with but then again, Andrew and Kath didn't have a previous media profile... and thank God for that!
Mr James and his pax are alive. Mr Wilson and his pax are dead.
Talk about an injustice, how unfair is that. And don't turn that around to read the folk at Norfolk should have died either, you know thats not what I mean.
So....in summary there is no comparrison, Mr James deserved all the stick he got.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It also occurs to me that trainers can tend to agonise over whether we they did enough, whether we properly prepared our trainee. This has been mentioned already in this thread.
Having thought about this many times over the 20 or so years I have been training pilots, I have come to the conclusion that the mechanical process of handling an emergency is usually not the culprit - it tends to be more the subsequent decision-making, once the initial adrenalin rush has subsided a bit. "OMG I gotta get it down" turns into "well maybe if I do this or do that, I can get it back to base" and all the standard GA pressures start to operate (real and imagined). Having been back in GA for just a few weeks, I am already shocked at the pressures that exist to cut corners, and how readily my new colleagues submit to them.
In this case, I think that the pilot's initial handling of the emergency was probably exemplary, the radio calls demonstrate a level of confidence in the outcome, the details (like the lack of a mayday call) are largely irrelevant, but the eventual outcome doesn't seem to stack up when you consider the preceding events.
I guess my point is that safe flying is all about judgement, a skill that is learned, and unfortunately a skill that can also be subverted. No trainer can be held, or hold themselves, responsible for the decisions an ex-trainee makes.
Personally, I take the view that a light twin with a failed engine is essentially a glider. If you treat it like that, you minimise the requirement to exercise supreme skill in controlling a marginal aircraft in the worst possible circumstance. You might not make it quite as far, but your chances of meeting the ground under control are greatly enhanced.
Having thought about this many times over the 20 or so years I have been training pilots, I have come to the conclusion that the mechanical process of handling an emergency is usually not the culprit - it tends to be more the subsequent decision-making, once the initial adrenalin rush has subsided a bit. "OMG I gotta get it down" turns into "well maybe if I do this or do that, I can get it back to base" and all the standard GA pressures start to operate (real and imagined). Having been back in GA for just a few weeks, I am already shocked at the pressures that exist to cut corners, and how readily my new colleagues submit to them.
In this case, I think that the pilot's initial handling of the emergency was probably exemplary, the radio calls demonstrate a level of confidence in the outcome, the details (like the lack of a mayday call) are largely irrelevant, but the eventual outcome doesn't seem to stack up when you consider the preceding events.
I guess my point is that safe flying is all about judgement, a skill that is learned, and unfortunately a skill that can also be subverted. No trainer can be held, or hold themselves, responsible for the decisions an ex-trainee makes.
Personally, I take the view that a light twin with a failed engine is essentially a glider. If you treat it like that, you minimise the requirement to exercise supreme skill in controlling a marginal aircraft in the worst possible circumstance. You might not make it quite as far, but your chances of meeting the ground under control are greatly enhanced.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Artic
Age: 43
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to blacklabel
regarding the fuel theory- if the fuel was contaminated with jetA1, why did no other aircraft have problems that day? if it did recive fuel out of a truck wouldnt they of realised it was jetA1 before fueling any aircraft? i say this becouse, they test the truck every morning before they fuel the first aircraft of the day, as i do work out of bk and have seen them do it. and if the aircraft received fuel from a bowser, most certantly other aircraft would of had problems. stop me if im wrong i know they would test for water etc but wouldnt they know the differance in colour when they would of pulled a sample???.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
chickroll
This is a bit of thread drift, but there have been numerous occassions in recent years, so yes it does happen, either wrong bowser or wrong truck.
I could tell a very funny story about Qld Police doing a similar thing to a Landcruiser (Speed Camera) and the Toyota dealer enjoyed every minute of it, telling them they could have it back Monday.....
they were not amsued. Even more so when my brother suggested he should not release the vehicle as it was ILLEGAL due to roadworty issues from modifications not being recorded and plated. 
Time will tell if it was a fuel issue. As someone has said already, if the cause of the problem is not perfectly clear....like pistons hanging off and oil everywhere, and you are 100% sure the other one will be fine for a short while, best to park it at the nearest strip.
J
This is a bit of thread drift, but there have been numerous occassions in recent years, so yes it does happen, either wrong bowser or wrong truck.
I could tell a very funny story about Qld Police doing a similar thing to a Landcruiser (Speed Camera) and the Toyota dealer enjoyed every minute of it, telling them they could have it back Monday.....
they were not amsued. Even more so when my brother suggested he should not release the vehicle as it was ILLEGAL due to roadworty issues from modifications not being recorded and plated. Time will tell if it was a fuel issue. As someone has said already, if the cause of the problem is not perfectly clear....like pistons hanging off and oil everywhere, and you are 100% sure the other one will be fine for a short while, best to park it at the nearest strip.
J
Has anyone got any links to these stories?
I have got a few pms from media but told them all to get nicked! It would be a slap in Willows face if I commented even with something good as no doubt it would be twisted to suit their own agenda..
GG
I have got a few pms from media but told them all to get nicked! It would be a slap in Willows face if I commented even with something good as no doubt it would be twisted to suit their own agenda..
GG
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Artic
Age: 43
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jabawocky
sorry i dont understand what you mean by this is a thread drift?, there has been numerous post saying that there has been jetA1 pumped into the tanks, or the fuel was a factor.
I dont want to P__ anyone off as this is a sensitive topic but, reading the threads ppl think that fuel is to blame or a factor, which to me seems like the easiest chioice.
what im saying is only one aircraft had a problem that day, a very serious one.
if fuel was it, well i think that there should of been at least 20 droping out of the sky that day. more than one aircraft took off from bk, and a few of them would have recieved fuel from the same supplier.
I dont want to P__ anyone off as this is a sensitive topic but, reading the threads ppl think that fuel is to blame or a factor, which to me seems like the easiest chioice.
what im saying is only one aircraft had a problem that day, a very serious one.
if fuel was it, well i think that there should of been at least 20 droping out of the sky that day. more than one aircraft took off from bk, and a few of them would have recieved fuel from the same supplier.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAR 20.6 Section 3.2 specifically allows the pilot in command of an aircraft with an engine shut down, to proceed to an aerodrome of their choice rather than the nearest suitable aerodrome, if they deem it safe and operationally acceptable.
Its worth the reminder that the Whyalla accident had the pilot crucified for piloting error for some time before the truth about mechanical problems came out.
If 20.6 section 3.2 did not allow a pilot to chose an alternate airfield to return to then a number of lives would not have been lost.
Reminds me of the Duchess that left Essendon for Latrobe Valley and lost an engine. Could have stopped at Lilydale on the way but didn't for the reasons of 20.6 3.2. When they arrived at LTV they found that the engine had run out of the fuel and the second one only had a few litres left. If that stupid rule didn't exist, the aircraft would have refuelled at Lilydale and continued in complete safety (or at least as safe as a Duchess can be) PS might have some airfields wrong in that story.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabawocky,
I'm not going to comment on young Doms predicament one way or the other. I'm not an accident investigator looking at a piece of paper with all the contributing factors that led to that situation occurring and his part in it.
I'm not going to comment on Andrews predicament as again, I'm not holding a piece of paper with all the contributing factors that led to that situation occuring and his part in it.
That goes also for the specific organisations that employed these blokes as well as the organisations that employed them previously with cultures that exist there. Happy to talk generics though.
Do I have an opinion?.............yep, you bet!
If you want to discuss it via PM, more than happy to. I'm no different than anybody else in wanting to know what happened. I don't want my family to suffer what the families of these people have gone through. There's been some decent stuff here...not a lot but it's there none the less.
I will not however watch people who, for obvious and less obvious reasons cannot defend themselves, be ripped up on a public forum. It just aint right. It just aint fair. It just aint the done thing.
I'll say this again, and hopefully for the last time.
Show some respect and tact guys.
Mods...again?
I'm not going to comment on young Doms predicament one way or the other. I'm not an accident investigator looking at a piece of paper with all the contributing factors that led to that situation occurring and his part in it.
I'm not going to comment on Andrews predicament as again, I'm not holding a piece of paper with all the contributing factors that led to that situation occuring and his part in it.
That goes also for the specific organisations that employed these blokes as well as the organisations that employed them previously with cultures that exist there. Happy to talk generics though.
Do I have an opinion?.............yep, you bet!
If you want to discuss it via PM, more than happy to. I'm no different than anybody else in wanting to know what happened. I don't want my family to suffer what the families of these people have gone through. There's been some decent stuff here...not a lot but it's there none the less.
I will not however watch people who, for obvious and less obvious reasons cannot defend themselves, be ripped up on a public forum. It just aint right. It just aint fair. It just aint the done thing.
I'll say this again, and hopefully for the last time.
Show some respect and tact guys.
Mods...again?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there has been numerous post saying that there has been jetA1 pumped into the tanks, or the fuel was a factor.
ppl think that fuel is to blame or a factor, which to me seems like the easiest chioice.
if fuel was it, well i think that there should of been at least 20 droping out of the sky that day. more than one aircraft took off from bk, and a few of them would have recieved fuel from the same supplier.
There are two things wrong with this thread. One is the copious amount of over-wrought emotion, the other is the amount of mindless and ill-informed speculation.
Why the engine failed isn't the issue. Whether the other one had a problem isn't the issue either. The real issue is why it was not possible to safely land the aircraft from 7000 feet, with a variety of possible landing venues available, plenty of time, and plenty of help available.
That's the only issue that I'm interested in finding answers to. The rest is interesting but ultimately not the core issue.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak,
"Why the engine failed isn't the issue. Whether the other one had a problem isn't the issue either. The real issue is why it was not possible to safely land the aircraft from 7000 feet, with a variety of possible landing venues available, plenty of time, and plenty of help available.
That's the only issue that I'm interested in finding answers to. The rest is interesting but ultimately not the core issue."
Merely a matter of opinion then.
The answers to the first two sentences with direct and indirect causes then give you the answer to the third in part...I would think. However, I could say the reverse. They're all interelated at an educated guess.
It seems you've already made up your mind methinks.
"There are two things wrong with this thread. One is the copious amount of over-wrought emotion, the other is the amount of mindless and ill-informed speculation."
No problem with the second point. The first however makes me shake my head in wonder at this point.
"Why the engine failed isn't the issue. Whether the other one had a problem isn't the issue either. The real issue is why it was not possible to safely land the aircraft from 7000 feet, with a variety of possible landing venues available, plenty of time, and plenty of help available.
That's the only issue that I'm interested in finding answers to. The rest is interesting but ultimately not the core issue."
Merely a matter of opinion then.
The answers to the first two sentences with direct and indirect causes then give you the answer to the third in part...I would think. However, I could say the reverse. They're all interelated at an educated guess.
It seems you've already made up your mind methinks.
"There are two things wrong with this thread. One is the copious amount of over-wrought emotion, the other is the amount of mindless and ill-informed speculation."
No problem with the second point. The first however makes me shake my head in wonder at this point.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answers to the first two sentences with direct and indirect causes then give you the answer to the third in part...I would think. However, I could say the reverse. They're all interelated at an educated guess.
I am absolutely certain that, if handed an aircraft at 7000 feet only a couple of miles from a suitable aerodrome, with no weather issues and in clear conditions, I could safely land it there. I'm sure you could too. Just close both throttles and enjoy the glide... because you have plenty of time.
The problems start when other considerations come into play, like, for example, returning to a particular airport, safeguarding one's job, and so on.
It reminds me of the crash of Charles Church and his Spitfire. He suffered a partial engine failure and elected to return to the field, trying to save the aircraft. He flew over several perfectly good fields on the way to airport... on the way to which he stalled, spun, crashed and died. An utterly pointless death. I was there and saw it.
When whatever failure happened in this most recent case, a landing with no further damage was perfectly possible. From there, the possible outcomes become progressively worse until you get to the end result that we now have. Which outcome happens is solely down to the decisions made after the failure (unless the failure results in an unrecoverable loss of control right at the very beginning). Those decisions are in turn influenced by the factors mentioned above.
Most pilots get that it is about maintaining control at all times, and always having options. That is where experience counts.
No problem with the second point. The first however makes me shake my head in wonder at this point.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please pull your head in.
Well, I'm going to wait for the ATSB report. That is all.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Post Of The Year Award
Quote:
there has been numerous post saying that there has been jetA1 pumped into the tanks, or the fuel was a factor.
There HAVE been numerous posts SPECULATING about the POSSIBILITY that fuel MAY have been an issue. There have been an equal number pouring cold water on that one...
Quote:
ppl think that fuel is to blame or a factor, which to me seems like the easiest chioice.
...and almost certainly the WRONG one... think about it for a minute.
Quote:
if fuel was it, well i think that there should of been at least 20 droping out of the sky that day. more than one aircraft took off from bk, and a few of them would have recieved fuel from the same supplier.
Why? We are talking about mis-fuelling, not bad fuel per se.
There are two things wrong with this thread. One is the copious amount of over-wrought emotion, the other is the amount of mindless and ill-informed speculation.
Why the engine failed isn't the issue. Whether the other one had a problem isn't the issue either. The real issue is why it was not possible to safely land the aircraft from 7000 feet, with a variety of possible landing venues available, plenty of time, and plenty of help available.
That's the only issue that I'm interested in finding answers to. The rest is interesting but ultimately not the core issue.
there has been numerous post saying that there has been jetA1 pumped into the tanks, or the fuel was a factor.
There HAVE been numerous posts SPECULATING about the POSSIBILITY that fuel MAY have been an issue. There have been an equal number pouring cold water on that one...
Quote:
ppl think that fuel is to blame or a factor, which to me seems like the easiest chioice.
...and almost certainly the WRONG one... think about it for a minute.
Quote:
if fuel was it, well i think that there should of been at least 20 droping out of the sky that day. more than one aircraft took off from bk, and a few of them would have recieved fuel from the same supplier.
Why? We are talking about mis-fuelling, not bad fuel per se.
There are two things wrong with this thread. One is the copious amount of over-wrought emotion, the other is the amount of mindless and ill-informed speculation.
Why the engine failed isn't the issue. Whether the other one had a problem isn't the issue either. The real issue is why it was not possible to safely land the aircraft from 7000 feet, with a variety of possible landing venues available, plenty of time, and plenty of help available.
That's the only issue that I'm interested in finding answers to. The rest is interesting but ultimately not the core issue.
GADRIVER
Would rather debate it over a beer some time, but for the moment I think the above post sums it up pretty well.
I never knew Andrew, but I bet right now if he was able to log in and post from the grave he would also say..."YSRI was the better choice, buggered if I know why I did not take it."
Yes its all very easy in hindsight, but the very point of us discussing this is so that maybe 8 out of 10 future problems in the air end in
and not 
. There will always be another accident like Andrews, unfortunately good people like him, like Shane Whitbread, will make a mistake. It might be me next....it might be you, the idea here is to help keep the number of mistakes the minority. Unfortunately as posted by Owen Stanley a lot of late the training does not give you ALL the tools required.I just watched a video which I suggest YOU ALL watch. not about aviation, but about driving on the roads. Some of what MS talks about applies to a avaiation training accident near YCAB recently. The rest is just good info. It makes you think.
It makes you think...........
Sunday Night Videos - Yahoo!7 TV
I am not sure how close you are to any of the pilots concerned that you want to protect their honour....at least as far as I know on pprune I am as close as anyone to the Whitbread family .......None of this is about being politically correct, or having a soft spot....its about learning all we can about helping prevent our loved ones, your loved ones, having to experience the same thing.
I do not see any of this being about "knifing someone" after they have gone. Even if we discuss things that are plausable but did not happen, and may be disproved in the ATSB report.... we are all still better for it.
I say this with all sincerity, and not just to you, as we seem to be having the debate, but to anyone who feels discussing these kind of accidents freely is not in good taste.
Fly Safe everyone.
J
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was trying to avoid most of the bull$hit speculation and news on this very very sad event... like many close to him I am hurting - there are some regular readers of this forum who were very close to this fantastic gentleman. I know this thread isnt here for this - but for his family and friends my sincere condolences...
Remoak I have to agree with Gadrivr. Emotions aside your response was truely arrogant.
Like many I dare not say that he made a mistake, but unlike some I care not to speculate. There are numerous persons, trained to do so, working on this as we speak. It is all well and good to learn from the mistakes of others, but it is just downright wrong to throw stones and wildly speculate about something that only one person (at this stage) was privvy to the details of.
At the time, with what information and feedback from the aircraft that Andrew had, he made a series of decisions. In this instance I firmly believe that he would of made the correct ones. Doing everything he could, with what he was given.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing- but in this instance he won't get that chance.
Some may never see an engine fail inflight - I have personally been at the controls for 3. All of them the chips fell my way. 2 of them i continued - 1 of them i didnt get a choice. The most recent of my engine failures was put down to fuel contamination. Recent maintenance to fix a leak in the fuel tank had made the sealant from the wet wing come away and create a sludge. This of course blocked the pickup and filters, starving the engine of fuel. Decided to fix not feather - attempted restart - engine restarted with surging - x-fed it and flew home. Each step was planned and happened based on myposition, experience and feedback from the aircraft at the time.
The only facts you know from this accident are: that he was on one engine - he planned a return to Bankstown - something else has occured or become apparent not allowing this to happen, resulting in a tragic loss.
We don't know the cause or extent of the failure.
We don't know the reason in his inabilty to maintain height after descent.
We don't even know if there weren't multiple failures.
We do know he was in control of the situation upto the landing.
We do know he attempted a landing on a road.
Everything else is speculation and requires investigation. He had reasons for his actions and we just don't know enough to draw conclusions...
Granted learning from this could save someones life. But given the wrong information could prove catastrophic as well... in my case above if i turned my twin into a glider I would of wrecked a perfectly good aeroplane, when all i needed to do was not run on that tank. EDFP fails - oh dont switch on the boost pump i readon pprune i need to glide into tiger country or suburbia. Speculation and misinformation is just as dangerous i feel.
Rightly so people want answers... and this will happen in due course. Personal attacks and questions of integrity of this fine young aviator however shouldn't come into question.
I did stay off pprune until I thought I was ready... Still not there yet, but sparing a thought for those on the emotional rollercoaster right now. They will return here, and rest assured the one emotion following grief will be anger...
So please, the ony reason for this drawn out reply is that you keep it clean guys...
cheers,
Rob
Remoak I have to agree with Gadrivr. Emotions aside your response was truely arrogant.
Like many I dare not say that he made a mistake, but unlike some I care not to speculate. There are numerous persons, trained to do so, working on this as we speak. It is all well and good to learn from the mistakes of others, but it is just downright wrong to throw stones and wildly speculate about something that only one person (at this stage) was privvy to the details of.
At the time, with what information and feedback from the aircraft that Andrew had, he made a series of decisions. In this instance I firmly believe that he would of made the correct ones. Doing everything he could, with what he was given.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing- but in this instance he won't get that chance.
Some may never see an engine fail inflight - I have personally been at the controls for 3. All of them the chips fell my way. 2 of them i continued - 1 of them i didnt get a choice. The most recent of my engine failures was put down to fuel contamination. Recent maintenance to fix a leak in the fuel tank had made the sealant from the wet wing come away and create a sludge. This of course blocked the pickup and filters, starving the engine of fuel. Decided to fix not feather - attempted restart - engine restarted with surging - x-fed it and flew home. Each step was planned and happened based on myposition, experience and feedback from the aircraft at the time.
The only facts you know from this accident are: that he was on one engine - he planned a return to Bankstown - something else has occured or become apparent not allowing this to happen, resulting in a tragic loss.
We don't know the cause or extent of the failure.
We don't know the reason in his inabilty to maintain height after descent.
We don't even know if there weren't multiple failures.
We do know he was in control of the situation upto the landing.
We do know he attempted a landing on a road.
Everything else is speculation and requires investigation. He had reasons for his actions and we just don't know enough to draw conclusions...
Granted learning from this could save someones life. But given the wrong information could prove catastrophic as well... in my case above if i turned my twin into a glider I would of wrecked a perfectly good aeroplane, when all i needed to do was not run on that tank. EDFP fails - oh dont switch on the boost pump i readon pprune i need to glide into tiger country or suburbia. Speculation and misinformation is just as dangerous i feel.
Rightly so people want answers... and this will happen in due course. Personal attacks and questions of integrity of this fine young aviator however shouldn't come into question.
I did stay off pprune until I thought I was ready... Still not there yet, but sparing a thought for those on the emotional rollercoaster right now. They will return here, and rest assured the one emotion following grief will be anger...
So please, the ony reason for this drawn out reply is that you keep it clean guys...
cheers,
Rob
Last edited by Xcel; 18th Jun 2010 at 14:13.